An appellant said in his grounds of appeal that the appealed ruling by which he was convicted of possessing drugs had insufficient evidence of causation. He said that the court had established its ruling on the grounds of the testimony of a police officer though it included many contradictions. He said that he denied the accusation but the court dismissed his defence.

The court of cassation said that this argument was invalid. The court said that the court considered all aspects of the incident and concluded that the elements of the crime existed in the case. The court said that the court had established its ruling on the grounds of solid evidence including the testimonies of the witnesses and the report of a criminal laboratory. The court said that the evaluation 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.