Article 113: Insurrection against the State

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 2857/2530 (1987)

   Offences against the internal security of the Kingdom under Sections 113, 114 and 116 are offences directly against the State, so only the State is the injured party and a private person, even a member of parliament, has no power to prosecute.

   The public prosecutor charged the defendants under Sections 113, 114 and 116. The court held that these offences against the internal security of the Kingdom are committed directly against the State, so the State alone is the injured party with power to prosecute. Even though the complainant was a member of parliament, he was not an injured person under the Criminal Procedure Code and had no standing to bring the case.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1688/2561 (2018)

   Where a body that seized power exercised de facto executive and legislative authority over the machinery of state, the interim constitution it enacted has the status of law.

   Fifteen plaintiffs sought to prosecute five defendants under Sections 113 and 114, and the lower courts dismissed the case. On the plaintiffs' further appeal, the court reasoned that the body which seized power had de facto executive and legislative authority controlling the mechanisms and agencies of state, so the interim constitution it enacted had the status of law.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.