The appellants said in their grounds of appeal that the appealed ruling by which they were convicted of possessing drugs for trading purposes and entering the country without a visa had insufficient evidence of causation and had erred in the application of law. They said that the court established its ruling on the grounds of their confessions though they denied that they had committed the crime.

The court of cassation said that this argument was valid. The court said that the documents of the case revealed that the court had established its ruling on the grounds that the appellants confessed before the office of public prosecution that they committed the crime. The court said that the documents of the case, however, revealed that the appellants had denied that they smuggled the drugs to Kuwait. The court said that the court had failed to consider the documents of the case properly and that it established its ruling on an invalid base.