[ad_1]
It is important that the General Directorate of Internal Security Forces clarifies to the public opinion that what is mentioned in the aforementioned article entails many fallacies and false accusations about its work and its role in maintaining security and order and the protection of citizens for the following reasons:
First: The aforementioned article states that the victim went to Antelias’ platoon to file a complaint more than 24 hours after the accident occurred, and was asked to file a complaint directly with the Appeals Office in Mount Lebanon, and This The procedure was carried out after the review of the competent court, where an information file was organized on Antelias Pelotón No. 302/231 Date 1/3/2021, in which the victim’s statement, the facts and the content of the signal from the Public Prosecutor’s Office noted down to request that you file a complaint with the Public Prosecutor’s Office, given that 3 / days had elapsed since the incident when he arrived at the squad center (out of the flagrante delicto time range). Despite this and before this date, the Information Division, upon receiving information about the incident, began its procedures to find out the circumstances of the case (which is the measure that is followed in all cases and the information it receives) regardless of whether the plaintiff or the victim had filed a complaint in accordance with legal principles or No. Proof of this is that the specialized units of the division arrested on the same date, 1/2/2031, three suspects who were on board of the alleged “Hyundai Solaris”, which appeared in the videos circulating in the media about the case.
Second: The Information Division summoned the person interested in the driver of the “Jaguar” and listened to his testimony, which coincided with the statements of the suspects regarding the absence of attempted robbery or theft.
Third: Regarding the plastic rifle, it was previously indicated that it was seized during a search of the house of the fourth suspect (IG), who was later detained by the Directorate of Military Intelligence. The investigation did not initially determine whether it was used during the incident or not. After the fourth suspect was detained by the Intelligence Directorate and questioned by the Information Department, he returned and repeated the content of his statement received by the Intelligence Directorate that the weapon had a history of traffic preference, adding that while he was driving his car, the driver of the other car blocked the road in front of him and prevented him from overtaking. Upon reaching the Jal El Dib intersection near where he works, he passed the aforementioned car, stopped at a distance in front of it, got out of his car and pointed a Kalashnikov rifle (later seized by the intelligence services) at the face of the driver of the other car, and this matter happened as a result of the crowding on the road and not motivated by theft, especially and that the accident site near his workplace and the rifle was located inside the trunk of the car.
Fourth: The misrepresentation of the facts that the news site alleges is falsifying the facts and transforming them from a problem of right of way to an armed robbery so that this scenario corresponds to what is circulating through the mentioned site and not in the investigation carried out in the case, knowing that it is under the supervision of the competent Judicial Power and is based on Irrefutable Evidence.
Fifth: The General Directorate of the Internal Security Forces reiterates its emphasis in the media and electronic news sites of the need to be truthful and objective in the publication of any news, especially in light of the circumstances that the country is going through , and highlights that its role is to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens alike, whether they are suitors or suspects. His “.
[ad_2]
