An appellant said in his grounds of appeal that the appealed ruling by which he was convicted of possessing drugs and smuggling had erred in the application of law and had insufficient evidence of causation. He said that the court had established its ruling on the grounds of the testimony of the police officer though it included many contradictions.

The court of cassation said that this argument was invalid. The court said that the court had considered all aspects of the incident and concluded that the elements of the crimeexisted. The court said that the court had established its ruling on the grounds of solid evidence including the testimony of the police officer and a test by the criminal laboratory. The court said that the evaluation of the validity of the testimonies of the witnesses fell under the court's authority. The court said that the court was satisfied with these testimonies.

The court dismissed the appeal.