Stone Throwing

 

Translation: Marganit W.

 
Ofra's Report:
We came to observe the trial of Bassem Tamimi. While waiting we met the
worried parents of a minor facing remand extension. Four other minors (maybe there were more - there was not docket, as should be) paraded before the judge, Sharon Rivlin-Ahai, who is in charge of trying Palestinian children and youths. Perhaps her practice will soon be extended, if the Prime Minister's suggestion that the Youth of the Hills  - who threaten peace in the region - are to be tried at the military courts in Judea. However, if this comes to pass, it will surely be the End of Days. In the meantime,only Palestinian children are routinely incriminated by their peers - courtesy of the GSS; only Palestinian children are kidnapped from bed in the middle of the night by Israeli soldiers and handed over to seasoned interrogators who also export their expertise to other countries; only
Palestinian children are taken away from their families and detained for months, cut off from friends and from their studies - only because they are Palestinians. This is what happened to the four I saw today, as they were brought in, two by two, handcuffed together:

Muhammad Abu Rumi, 15, from Al-Azariya, Saber Maali, 16 from Daheishe , Muaz Abu Nasser, 15,  and Yusuf Sabahne, 14, both from Daheishe, both detained since 23.7.11!
All four are accused of throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails. All categorically deny the allegations, which is why no plea bargain has been struck, as the court normally tries to impose. This is the reason for the unusually protracted detention - almost half a year! - of Muaz and Yusuf.
Moreover, both are charged with a violation allegedly carried out on Naqba Day (May 2008, when they were 10 and 11). How can an incriminating child
remember what happened three years earlier, unless the interrogators "make sure" he remembers. Why is it so important for the system to prosecute
minors for something that happened when they were young kids?
Muhammad complained of having been beaten by the GSS officer. His defense attorney, Tareq Bargout requested a postponement so he can check the
complaint before the next hearing, on 18.1.12.
A conversation with the attorney and Muhammad's father yielded the following:
Muhammad was arrested with his brother Abdullah, 13. The father, Ramzi, joined them at the interrogation facility at the soldiers' request. In accordance with the law governing juvenile interrogations, he was present at Abdullah's interrogation, and the latter was promptly released. But at the same time, Muhammad was interrogated without his father's presence, which is a violation of the Juvenile Law. He has been detained at Ofer ever since, for a month and a half.
 

Muaz and Yusuf are detained at Ward 3 at the Meggido Prison [the father claims that the facility houses adults too]. Their most serious complaint concerns "Ramleh Transit" (inside Ramleh Prison). This is part of the procedure of transferring prisoners/detainees from jail to the court. This transition site is notoriously agonizing. This is how the children describe it: filth, cockroaches, terrible food , awful toilets, no blankets! The tw spent 2 days at Ramleh Transit , from Thursday to Sunday, their day in court. The judge apparently knew about the ordeal, , which is why she showed "consideration" and set the next hearing day for Wednesday, which offers the shortest transit time.   

I reported all these facts to Physicians for Human Rights and to the Committee Against Torture as well as to B'tzelem.

Norah's Report:
As noted earlier, we came chiefly to attend the trial of Bassem Tamimi,
resident of Nabi Saleh, who has been detained since Mars 2011.

But before his trial started,  there was a memorandum hearing in the case of Muhammad Azem Zadki Kafaya, ID. 921569455, Case 1556/11
Judge: Major Etty Adar
Defense: Atty. Labib Habib
Charge: membership and activity [in an unlawful organization)
Kafaya is accused of supporting the Islamic Jihad. He was under administrative detention as well as detention by the PA.
His brother was in court. He told us that he, too, had been detained for a long period on charges of "membership".
An evidentiary hearing will be held on 5.2.12 at 13:30. Witnesses will be summoned.
 

Bassem Muhammad Abd Alrahman Tamimi, ID 959225640, Case  2058/11
Judge: Major Etty Adar
Defense: Atty. Labib Habib
Prosecutor: Major Michael Avitan

The only witness for the prosecution in this evidentiary hearing was Inspector Jalal Aweida who served as Investigation Officer (and is today a prosecutor in Acre). Aweida is well remembered for his testimony in the trial within a trial
concerning the legality of the interrogation of the minor Islam Dar Ayyoub from Nabi Saleh, who had incriminated Bassem Tamimi. [We found out lately that Justice Rivlin-Ahai had rejected the defense's argument that Islam's investigation was not conducted according to the law - see Press release and video from Islam's interrogation, published by the Popular Struggle Coordination Committee].

Aweida's examination and the cross-examination lasted for many hours, well into the afternoon. But the highlight of this tiresome examination was Aweida's repeated assertion that the minor's interrogation was conducted in a pleasant, relaxed atmosphere, that he did not use any intimidation tactics, everything was done in good humor. Even when he was confronted with a video of the interrogation where he is seen making threatening motions toward the boy, he insisted that it was all done jokingly”.
(See protocol of the hearing/examination- in Hebrew).

On the whole, Aweida's conduct was that of a landlord, not of a summoned witness. He answered what he chose to answer, raised his voice and bawled out the defense, until the judge had to reprimand him.
The next hearings are set for 22.1.12 /  29.1.12 / 19.2.12 / 26.2.12.

 

 

Translation: Marganit W.

A few minutes after our arrival, the last family members of the prisoners were admitted into the facility. We waited for 15 minutes for the gate to open. At the window the guard checked that our permits (with names, which is not required) were in order before letting us in.

Judge: Sharon Rivlin-Ahai
Prosecutor: Atty. Batya Piterio
Defense: Atty. Muhammad Shaheen
Most of the defendants were young boys.
 

Defendant: Azzadin Abu Shamaa, born 1997, from Al-Aroub refugee camp.
He is accused of throwing rocks and participating in a disturbance of the peace. A plea bargain stipulated 75 days incarceration (to coincide with time spent in detention), 1000 shekel fine and a suspended sentence of 5 months for 4 years, if he is ever accused of throwing rocks again.
Arguments for "leniency": no prior record, admission of guilt and his young age (he was not yet14 when the violation was committed).  It is important to note that during the plea bargain "evidentiary difficulties" were cited. Shouldn't this be grounds for withdrawal of the charge??
According to Azzadin's father, he was accused of taking part in "Naqba Day" demonstration; he was arrested a week later and has been detained for two and a half months (this schedule is questionable, since Naqba Day was
on May 15).

Zakaria Abu Aisha, 16 years old, from Bethlehem.
Defense: Atty. Muhammad Shaheen.
According to the revised charge sheet, the defendant admits to throwing rocks and paint bottles at defense forces, and hurling a Molotov cocktail at security forces last March.
The defense argued that despite the defendant's past record, the court should consider the fact that he is a minor. The judge reminded the defendant that at the previous trial he had claimed that friends dragged him along and he had promised not to repeat the offense; yet here he is again. It turns out that on 12.4.10 he was convicted of attacking and stabbing, together with friends. At the time he claimed that a friend threatened him and forced him to commit the act. He never intended to hurt anyone. He was sentenced to 12 months of time served and 12 months suspended sentence, which goes into effect today. He was released a year ago.
The judge approved a plea bargain, taking into account the defendant's past and the fact that the previous sentence was not enough of a deterrent; on the other hand, the court took into account his minority and his mental immaturity. His admission also contributed to the "leniency".
He was sentenced to 15 months in jail for this violation in conjunction with 3 months for the breach of the suspended sentence. In addition he will be jailed for 9 months. Altogether: 24 months. The judge declared this a lenient sentence considering the severity of the charges. Two years are not a light sentence for a kid this age.
The boy's face did not betray any emotion. His father, who sat next to us, spoke to him in a warm, soothing voice: You have two years now: use it to learn Hebrew, read the Koran, talk to God, use your time well. To us, the father remarked that his son was wrongly charged.

Omar Muhammad Al-Rahman, 14.5 years old, from Qalandiya refugee camp.
Asser Abd Al-Hakkim Shehadah, 14.5 years old, from Qalandiya refugee camp.
Defense: Atty. Ahlam Haddad
It was a joint hearing for both defendants.
The court accepted a plea bargain: the defendants were convicted as per their admission to having climbed a ladder over the fence and entering Atarot compound where they set fire to a tire and a cardboard. The court declared this not to be a clear case of "illegal sojourning" in Israel.
They were sentenced to jail time coinciding with their detention (66 days) and a 3000 shekel fine each, or alternately 3 months, plus suspended sentences for 4 years for similar violations of throwing objects. The arguments for the plea bargain were their admission of guilt at the police interrogation, their young age and the fact that there were serious flaws in the investigation. "Faulty investigation". In her decision, the judge added that in the future the court would show no tolerance for such lapses in a criminal investigation.
Atty. Ahlam later told us what the "faults" were. The interrogation was not filmed, only recorded. A comparison between the cassette and the transcript shows that only a few of the questions and answers were written down. There was no Juvenile Interrogator present; the interrogator yelled at the boys, the interrogation was conducted in Hebrew with interpretation, but the boys were unable to follow and verify what was said. Why are these failures called "flaws"? Is it just deviation from procedural rules or grounds for appealing the charges?

Salwwa Hassan, 51 years old.
Defense: Atty. Mahmoud Hassan
The defendant's son, 24 years old, was present in court and her face lit up when she saw him.
She is charged with chasing a settler with a knife at a checkpoint. (recorded in a film). The defendant claims that she had heard voices telling her to do it. A regional psychiatrist examined her and declared her fit to stand trial.

The defense argued that there are gaps between his version and the prosecution's and that he was trying to bridge those gaps. He requested a postponement.

Next hearing is set for 18.1.12.

 

Translation: Marganit W.

Continued coverage of the trial of Amir Ibrahim Haled Sabarna  (ID 852783190 - Case 5001/11. Resident of Beit Ummar.
 

Judge: Major Meir Visiger
Military Prosecutor: Lieutenant Avishai Kaplan
The interpreter was busy playing with one of those new electronic gadgets and often forgot to translate.
As for the typist: I suggest she works on improving her Hebrew spelling.
Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati.
 

The report on Amir Sabarna's trial could have been one of those boring reports where the facts are rehashed ad infinitum: who was up and who was down, what did you see before you had a drink and which way were you looking before you turned etc. etc. But in this case someone has overstepped the bound and the trial has broadened and mushroomed; all this because in Sabarna's case a soldier shot him in the shoulder, and this cannot be glossed over or shoved under the rug. A judge cannot ignore blood, hospital and medical records, and declare, "Case closed."
 

Norah Orlow reported on this case on 12.12.11and 19.12.11.
Amir is accused of throwing rocks, assaulting a soldier, resisting arrest, and rampaging - but after all this violence, he was the one shot and injured. In an earlier session, having sat for hours in the court at Ofer, he coughed, spat blood, collapsed and required medical attention.
His parents told us that two of Amir's brothers are also in detention, one of them (Rami Sabarna) sat with him in the dock. The other brother is incarcerated at Etzion Facility. Why were they arrested? The readers can hazard a guess. A correct answer will garner a prize.
Atty. Nery Ramati examined the shooting soldier and the officer who later took the statement. The quest for truth in these cases is a complicated endeavor: first a questioning officer, then an interrogator and then an investigator who takes the detainee's statement - this thrice-kneaded dough will then be baked into a bread.
The officer who took the statement is Itay Vazana. He has a law degree, but Atty. Ramati made mincemeat out of him in court. He means to disqualify his testimony because the officer does not tell the truth. This entire process was aided by an audio recording of the interrogation. Atty. Ramati, the judge, the prosecutor and the interpreter  (who translated every word into Hebrew) and even Sabarna himself, were all listening to the recording. A tense silence prevailed in the court, while everyone tried to listen and follow: it is not every day that the defense undermines a policeman's testimony using the latter's own recorded words.
So I thought to myself: true, we have an occupation here, but not a dictatorship.
Interrogations are recorded, nothing is hidden, the defense receives the relevant material, and in the court, both sides, the judge, the defendant and his family, together with us and 10 ‘Psychoactive’ representatives can watch and listen.
What is to become of Amir Sabarna? We don't know yet. The trial is to resume on 15.1.12. We'll see what the recordings, democracy and enlightenment will yield, and more importantly, whom will the judge believe?

Ashraf Ibrahim Ahmad Dar Abu Rahmah - ID 906435698 - Case 5012/11,
resident of Bil'in.
Judge: Major Meir Visiger
Prosecutor: Lieut. Eugenia Agranash
Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati
 

The defendant has become famous all over the world because a soldier, Leonardo Corea, by order of Brigade commander Omri Burberg,  shot him while he was bound and blindfolded;  also because his brother, Bassem Abu Rahmah, aka "El Phil" was murdered in April 2009 by a soldier who pelted him with a teargas canister at close range during a protest at Bil'in. His sister, Jawahar Abu Rahmah  choked to death from teargas during a demonstration in Bil'in in December 2010.
At the center of the defense interrogation was the question: was Ashraf arrested for participating in a protest, or was it retaliation for the prosecution of two soldiers (following the incident where the defendant was shot in the foot). The battalion commander Omri Burberg was convicted and his promotion was delayed by two years.
Two witness testified today: The present commander of the Northern region,
Lieut.-Col. Roman Kaufman (with a leg injury, a limp and a cane – reason unkown) and Sgt. Tom Hai Tsausho.
The defense presented a video on his computer, showing the demonstration when Abu Rahmah was arrested. He confronted Kaufman with erroneous
statements made during the interrogation. Asked if he is aware of the defendant's record of resistance to the occupation, Kaufman says he is: he has seen a picture of the protest in the paper. Atty. Ramati asks, "You saw the defendant during the demonstration, you saw what he did and yet you did not arrest him until the end, when the protest was over and Abu Rahmaeh was running after the jeep with a flag." The commander replied, "There are two possibilities, either I did not see him, or I was walking and not riding in the jeep." He also said, "Maybe I was wrong."
The sergeant testified that he was operating a contraption called Alpha, which lobes gas grenades. He knows about the incident involving the shooting of Abu Rahmah, because after the soldier was arrested he spent a few hours with the detainee, who told him about the incident.
Here too, the defense used interrogation records stored in his computer. Personally, I regard all this as window-dressing , as an attempt to camouflage the
iniquities of the military courts. Apparently, the system realizes that states are judged by their human rights record, so a certain pretence of fair trial has to be maintained.
The tragedy of the Abu Rahmah family deserves broader coverage. This report cannot do justice to it.
Evidentiary hearing will take place on 15.1.12 at 13:00. Another witness for the prosecution will testify, as well as the defendant, and a few defense witnesses.
The rest of the defense witnesses will testify on 18.1.12.

 

Translation: Marganit W.

Follow-up on cases reported earlier.

Sausan Mahmud Hussein Hamamda– ID 8526341 - Case 5487/11

Judge: Major Meir Vigiser

Prosecutor: Major Nathanel Kola

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati

[See previous report regarding Sausan’s case]

Sausan came to court from her village Umm-Fakara in South Hebron Mountain, accompanied by her father. Present in the court were two activists from “The Village Group” and one (f.) activist from the “Women Prisoners Committee”.

Eventually, Sausan was obliged to accept a plea bargain: she admitted attacking a BP officer (with a rock, as specified by the indictment), but she rejected the claim that she had been warned by soldiers – in Arabic – during the incident, and she also rejected the claim that she tried once again to beat the soldier with a rock.

In his decision the judge wrote that “understandably, the accused was upset… due to the fact that her house was about to be demolished…”

Sentence: 8 days of time served, to coincide with her detention, plus one month suspended sentence for two years, plus 3000 shekel fine (deducted from the 5000 shekel deposit).

Sausan’s cousin, Amal Hamada, a minor, who was arrested with her, was not charged.

 

Amir Ibrahim Haled Sabarne– ID 852783190 – Case 5001/11, a resident of Beit Ummar

Judge: Major Meir Vigiser

Prosecutor: Lieutenant Avishai Kaplan

Defense: Nery Ramati

(See previous report regarding his case)

Amir’s father was present in court.

Several witnesses for the prosecution were summoned to testify today. Again, 2 witnesses – both soldiers – did not show up. The excuse was that the summons had been sent to their commander, not to them. Another witness was delayed, sending word that he would appear at noon. Another witness was at the gate, but the prosecution requested half an hour to brief him before his testimony. Thus, much time was wasted, while the accused sat on the bench, his feet shackled, visibly uncomfortable. [Reminder: the man was shot in the back when he was arrested and one of his lungs was injured].

The only witness to report to court was the 17-year old minor, Muhammad Bahar (who was at large) who had also taken part in the protest at Beit Ummar on 12.10.11.

During his examination the witness was asked what he saw when the soldier shot at Amir, and whether he – Muhammad – held a rock in his hand that he was about to hurl at the soldier. The witness recanted what he had said to the police, claiming that the soldier was standing on his feet when he shot Amir (not lying down as he had told the police). He explained why today he was giving another version: before he was brought to the police, he had been interrogated (twice) by people who beat him; he ended up telling the police what they wanted to hear, fearing they would send him back to those who had beaten him.

The witness’s examination continued in the afternoon. Then 2 soldiers were brought in to testify about what had happened during the demonstration. This evidentiary hearing went on and on, and at one point the defendant collapsed and lay on the floor spitting blood. A medic was called and Amir was taken out on a stretcher.
We reported the case to Doctors for Human Rights.

The evidentiary hearing will continue on 26.12.11, morning and afternoon sessions. If the case is not concluded, another hearing was set for 2.1.12.

 

Mustafa Muhammad Yusuf Odeh– ID 976862854 – Case 5406/11, resident of Wallaje,

50 years old  

(See previous report regarding his case)

Judge: Sergeant-major Ronen Atzmon

Prosecutor: Atty. Major Orit Pargi Bechar

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati

The defendant’s mother was present during the proceeding.

A BP testified for the prosecution. He gave an eyewitness testimony of the incident:

“The witness was acting up when he was arrested. He fought with the policeman and fell with him from a height of 2 meters [the BP officer was injured – he is the one lodging the complaint].

-Who pushed whom?

-The policeman was closer to the crag, so apparently the defendant pushed the officer…

In cross-examination the witness admits that he did not see “an actual push”.

The prosecution presents a film taken by one of the protesters [Mazin Qumsiyeh, also arrested during the protest, but released a day later]. In the film the defendant is seen falling together with the officer.

After viewing the film, the prosecutor said, “We still maintain that the defendant caused the officer’s fall from the terrace, even if the court finds that the defendant was the first to fall down…”

An evidentiary hearing of the case is set for 2.1.12., when the injured BP officer is scheduled to testify.  

Translation: Marganit W.

On 23.11.11 we reported on the hearing of Mustafa Muhammad Yusuf Odeh from the village of Wallaje – ID. 976862854 – who was arrested on 13.11.11  for allegedly attacking a policeman and for participating in an unlawful demonstration.

Justice Vigiser released the 50-year old man to partial house arrest. At the same time, the judge acceded to the prosecution’s request to halt Odeh’s release for 72 hours to allow the prosecution to submit an appeal.

The prosecution indeed appealed. The hearing took place on 7.12.11 before Justice Lieutenant-Colonel Nathaniel Benishu, who rescinded Justice Vigiser’s decision and ordered Odeh to remain in custody until the conclusion of the proceedings.

And so Mustafa Odeh’s trial began today - Case 5406/11

Judge: Sgt.-Major Ronen Atzmon

Prosecutor: Captain Odelia Kardoner

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati

Earlier, the defendant had rejected a plea bargain, opting for a trial.

His mother was present in the court.

The defense stated that the accused denies all the allegations in the charge sheet. On the day in question he had come back from medical tests and happened to encounter a demonstration against the separation wall that is being built in around the village. During the riots, he and a soldier were pushed from a terrace and fell down. Soldiers immediately sprayed him with pepper spray and arrested him. A video shot by one of the protesters records the incident. The defense asked the court to watch the video during the first evidentiary hearing set for 19.12.11 at 13:30. Witnesses for the prosecution (soldiers) will also be summoned to the hearing through their commanders.

 

Courtroom 5

Judge: Major Meir Vigiser

Prosecutor: Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati

Evidentiary Hearing.

Defendant: Amir Ibrahim Haled Sabarna – ID 852783190 – Case 5001/11

Resident of Beit Ummar, a 22-year old student

In custody since 12.10.11.

His mother and another relative are present in court.

The charge: throwing rocks at security forces and attacking a soldier.

On the day of his arrest there was a demonstration at Beit Ummar [or as the charge sheet calls it, “mass disturbances”] in which Amir took part. When a soldier tried to arrest him he resisted physically. When two other protesters joined in, the soldier took out his gun and shot Amir in the back, as he said “because he feared for his life.”

The wounded man was taken to hospital: one of his lungs was damaged by the shot. Three days later they began to interrogate him.

The prosecution summoned two witnesses.

Witness No. 1, Sgt.-Major Avi Ben-Lulu from Hebron Precinct – he took the defendant’s statement on 16.10.11.

The witness explained that since the accused was injured, he was not interrogated right away. At the Ofer detention facility he only took preliminary deposition so he could ask for remand extension. He interrogated the accused in Arabic, but wrote it down in Hebrew. Amir signed the statement after its content had been translated to him into Arabic. The recording machine malfunctioned so nothing was recorded. The file was transferred to Gush Etzion Police. This witness states that he was not in charge of the investigation, the police investigators at Gush Etzion were.

-Did you tell them “he claims that he was shot in the back?”

-I don’t remember what I said.

 

Witness No. 2: Sgt.-Major Motti Ohana [who ‘questioned’ the minor who incriminated Amir Sabarna]

The witness testified that he has been serving in the police for 21 years, in intelligence and detective work. For the last four years he has been employed as “questioner”.

In cross-examination the defense asks him to explain the term.

A. It means interrogating the suspect, before the investigation.

Q. What are the rules of “questioning” as distinct from interrogation? What about documentation?

A. After the initial questioning the suspect is transferred to an interrogator who records and documents the testimony in depth... The ‘questioners’ have more time… they save the interrogators’ time, in fact, they make the system more efficient.

Q. Before the investigation?

A. Before or after…Never during the investigation.

Q. You deposed him on 16.10.11, but the accused had already told his version on 13.10.11, so what was the point of the questioning? He had already been interrogated.

The witness explained that he has more time at his disposal than the interrogator.

Q. The accused started to confess right after his interrogation at the police… “The questioners beat me up” – Is the accused lying? Did you beat him up?

A. No way. We hear such complaints a lot lately.

Q. Had you recorded the interrogation, we could have checked the allegation.

A. I don’t agree. A liar is a liar.

Q. Is there a difference between questioning a minor and an adult?

A. With a minor you have to notify the parents.

Q. Are you a juvenile interrogator?

A. No…

Q. Did you follow the Juvenile Law?

A. As it is written…. But there’s a difference between questioning and interrogating.

Q. Does the Juvenile Law cover this? For instance, the fact that the parents have to be present?

A. This does not apply to Palestinians citizens. There has been an amendment in the last two months….

Q. How long did this questioning last?

A. Can’t say for sure… about half an hour.

Q. And this is what it yielded? Ten lines?

 

The attorney later stated that he was not familiar with the proceeding and had no knowledge of that document [produced by the ‘questioner’]. The (minor) witness should have been summoned and given a chance to give his version.

The judge decided that after hearing the (minor) witness, the court will rule as to the admissibility of the document.

The minor will be summoned to testify on 19.12. 11, together with other prosecution witnesses.

To be continued next week.

 

 

  

 Translation: Marganit W.

Morning + afternoon sessions

Norah’s report:

Since there were several hearings we were interested in, we split for part of the time.

I report on hearings in Courts 5 and 7.

Courtroom 5

Judge: Major Shmuel Fleischman

Prosecutor: Captain Avishai Kaplan

Defense: Atty. Lymor Goldstein

I was present at the following hearings:

Suleiman Salem Issa Adrah– ID 850883216 – Case 226708, resident of Tawani in South Hebron Mountains.

See earlier reports of this case: 7.6.10 and 3.11.10

This is an old case from 2008. One of our members who attended the hearing wrote at the time:

“This may sound funny, but Mr. Adrah is accused of attacking Gedalya, the security chief of the area, of breaking into his jeep and breaking his eyeglasses. Try to imagine Mr. Adrah, a shepherd from Tawani, attacking the jeep of the security chief with bare hands, in the presence of the latter and other policemen, soldiers and settlers who were there for reasons we shall relate later. Mr. Adrah claims that he himself was attacked and needed medical care. Now that he is recovered, charges are brought against him. He is not detained, and came to court from his home. He testifies about the incident…”

Today the judge acquitted the defendant due to reasonable doubt about the charges. In view of his acquittal, he is to be reimbursed for the 3000 shekels that he deposited as bail in 2008 as guarantee for his reporting to court.

Since the prosecution has the right to appeal within 30 days, the prosecutor requested the money be withheld lest Adrah does not show up for the appeal.

The defense objected, stating that his client attended all his hearings in the past. The judge concurred and ordered the money reimbursed.

The rest of the hearings in Justice Fleischman’s court were conducted in a very different atmosphere.

Four young men from the village of Qarawat Bani Zeid were brought in to hear their sentence. The judge began badgering and humiliating them: he lectured them and browbeat them for having repeated an offence for which they had already been sentenced (throwing rocks). My impression was that he was particularly irked by their unbowed attitude as they sat on the defendants’ bench: they chatted with their relatives, smiled and giggled, perhaps out of embarrassment, perhaps because this is how young people behave when they sit together.

The judge himself had a cynical smirk on his face during the entire hearing, even when he was giving a ‘pep talk’ to the defendants.

Here are some of his pearls of wisdom:

“ Is that how you intend to divide your time, between the court and prison… ? You will get 14 months. Tell, me why not more? Why shouldn’t I give you 4 years?”

“Why are you laughing? You will stop laughing when you’ll be sitting in jail for a long time…”

“You have been talking all this time. Now I am going to talk and you will listen…”

“The defendant is smiling as if his verdict is not handed down today. I am not sure he understands the severity of his violations, and I am not sure he is not going to do it again, endangering security in the region. Under these circumstances, deterrence is called for, so I intend to be strict in deciding his suspended sentence.”

[Which is what he did. I wonder how the vindictive judge would have ruled, had the 17-year old dropped to his knees and cried. Would that have satisfied him?]

Another defendant, who told the court he was engaged to be married, was told, “You want to get married, eh? You should think about the kids you may have…” And then, “Maybe I should give you two years in jail, seeing that you like prison so much…”

All this was said with a smug smile.

 Numerous family members of the 4 detainees were sitting in the back of the hall. A Prison Service guard tried to impose order in the court, adding to the fraught atmosphere: he terrorized the audience, speaking rudely to the Palestinians [in Hebrew!] and repeatedly ordering people to leave the hall when they tried to speak to their sons, whom they had not seen for many months. The officer’s offensive behavior was particularly galling, but the judge did not intervene (as some judges have been known to do in similar circumstances).

The defendants:

Alaa Abdullah Said Suleiman – ID 852242833–Case 2698/11, 21 years old

Muhammad Kassem Sami Mahmud Arar – ID 853401792– Case 2754/11

Naji Majed Rabhi Arar – ID 853407143– Case 2546/11, 19 years old

Fathi Hamdulla Shiraf Arar – ID 854732617 -Case 2753/11, 17 years old

[See earlier reports: 10.4,11/ 28.4.11/ 18.5.11]

Since the sides had reached a plea bargain, a revised charge sheet was presented, including two clauses:

-Membership and activity in an unlawful organization (The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine)

-Throwing objects [rocks] at moving traffic.

Alaa Suleiman was not charged with throwing rocks. He was sentenced to 10 months in jail from the day of arrest, plus 12 months suspended sentence and a 2000 shekel fine.

Muhammad Arar was sentenced to 12 months in jail plus 12 months suspended sentence and 2000 shekel fine.

Naji Arar was sentenced to 12 months suspended sentence (including implementation of 60 days of an earlier suspended sentence – altogether 14 months of time served from the day of his arrest, plus 2000 shekel fine.

In Fathi Arar’s case too, the judge implemented an earlier suspended sentence, so he was sentenced to 14 months in jail, plus 12 months suspended sentence for 3 years for the violation of “membership in an unlawful organization,” 18 month suspended sentence for 3 years for throwing rocks and 4000 shekel fine.

The judge had threatened to mete out a harsh judgment and carried out his threat.

 

Courtroom 7

Judge: Major Meir Vigiser

Prosecutor: ?

Defense: atty. Lymor Goldstein

Defendant: Mustafa Muhammad Yussuf Odeh – ID 976862854 – Case 5406/11, 50 years old, from the village of Wallaje, a psychology lecturer at Bethlehem University.

He was arrested on 13.11.11 during a demonstration in Wallaje, when the villagers tried to stop the widening of the plot on which the separation wall is being built around the village. Mustafa Odeh is accused of pushing an officer to ditch, 2.5-meter deep during a confrontation with the army. As a result, the soldier’s leg was broken.

The defense claimed that there is no evidence that the defendant intentionally shoved the accuser, as attested by a film recording the incident. The attorney also insisted his client is being singled out: another man, arrested with him, had been released, and there were others who were not arrested at all. His client is not a serial protester and just happened to be there by chance…

The judge agreed that the film does not back the prosecution’s version, and that the defendant did not intentionally push the soldier, and fell himself into the ditch.

Still, he determined that the defendant took part in the riots, in the confrontation which caused the fall, and in an unlawful assembly.

In his decision the judge took into account the defendant’s age and the fact that he has no prior convictions for disturbances or violent acts. He imposed partial home arrest on the defendant, allowing him to go to Bethlehem to teach. He also ordered him to deposit 5000 shekels.

At the prosecution’s request, the judge deferred the execution of the verdict to allow for an appeal.

 

Hava’s report

Courtroom 1

Judge: Major Etty Adar

Prosecutor: Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Atty. Labib Habib

Defendant: Bassem Muhammad Abd Alrahman Tamimi – ID 959225640 – Case 2058/11

 Handbook for Guerilla Warfare

In the dock sits Bassem Tamimi, in the audience the usual crowd of Anarchists Against the Fence, a few European diplomats familiar with the place and the story, Bassem’s wife Nariman with a cousin, and two observers of the MachsomWatch court team.

Again, soldiers who were in the area testify. The prosecutor tries to prove that the protests were not spontaneous, but organized from above. We heard two witnesses for the prosecution. Since it was quite repetitive, I will report only testimony by Witness No. 6, Captain Yoni Greenstein, who explained how a guerilla war is conducted against an occupying army in a small village in the Middle East.

“From an organizational point of view of these things…. There were units that tried to divert my forces [MY FORCES!] to an area of groves below the soccer field and the greenhouses. This is a diversion tactic. As soon as the force arrived, they tried to get our attention. They threw rocks and we advanced toward them into a lower terrain underneath the soccer field…  then while throwing rocks, they tried to lure us to the groves, and there some more rock throwers came and pelted us with rocks from the soccer field above… It’s was like a cat and mouse game, where they tried to lure us to different places in the village… We would chase them until dark, and then at night they dispersed to their homes and the whole business was over.”

Prosecutor: What characterizes the cold weapon used by the rioters?

Witness: There were rocks, slingshots made of leather or cloth… also tear gas, mostly unexploded cans of ours… and also rubber-covered iron pellets which are also army issue and are also thrown by slings.

You may infer from the description that the army was there to prevent the march from reaching the settlement of Halamish, but this was not the case. They had other tasks and missions there:

“Another event that occurred not during a demonstration but during a night that I spent inside the village. I was making my way toward an alley that was blocked by two iron trashcans filled with rocks. As I turned around to leave the alley, a group of boys was waiting for me and pelted me with stones and rocks…”

What was the soldier doing there at 1:30 AM? This became clear during the cross-examination by the defense:

Q: Explain the photos you mentioned.

A: We went house to house mapping the inhabitants.

Q: What does that mean?

A: Photographing them, writing down the number of the house and who lives there.

Q: You mean, knock on the door? Go in?

A: Yes, knock on the door. At 1:30 AM!

Q: So how do you make them pose for a photo?

A: Tell the owner of the house to bring in everyone who lives there.

Then we were told that the rock-filled trashcans were burning, that the jeep hit a rock and broke down and it was impossible to get out of that blocked alley. Moreover, there were units and forces and photography teams and seizure of houses and dragging out of people – a veritable instruction manual for guerilla warfare. Toward the end we heard a few sentences that made it clear what popular resistance means:

Q: Those houses you seized, were they seized at the beginning of the operation?

A: Yes.

Q: But the protests continued?

A: Yes.

Q: Until you ended your stint there… while the protest continued in the same manner?

A: Yes.

The trial will resume on 28.11.11.

 

  

 

Translation: Marganit W.

Judge: Lieut.-Col. Ronen Atzmon

Prosecutor: Major Orit Pragi-Bechar

Defense: Atty. Ahlam Hadad

Most of the morning session was taken up by the interrogation of two settlers on whose testimony the prosecution based its indictment of the defendant Mustafa Samir Muhammad Kanaan (ID. 411016280 – Case No. 5189/11).

Mustafa Kanaan is a 20-year old student at Al-Quds University.

His mother and cousin were present in court.

He was arrested on 26.10.11 by two soldiers who had been lying in wait for three men at Mikhmas village. The three men carried clubs because they were charged with guarding the property of villagers living abroad. The detainees were taken to a police station where they were interrogated: they were suspected of attacking two settlers from Psagot who, the day before, had driven through a crossing near the village. The three detainees denied the allegations, claiming that on the night of the incident they were in the village.

Six days after the arrest (on 30.11.11) one of the settlers involved in the incident was summoned to the police where he identified Mustafa Kanaan in a line-up. He asserted with certainty that Mustafa was the one who had attacked him and his friend. He was not asked about the other detainees.

The police did not bother to check Mustafa’s alibi and pressed charges against him for an attempted attack, destruction of property, carrying weapons without a license and several other violations.

Today, the two settlers testified in court. The first to testify was the one who had been in the driver seat and who had identified Mustafa in pictures that were screened before him. In reply to the prosecutor’s questions and to the defense’s cross-examination, he described the incident and repeated his absolute certainty in the attacker’s identity. The attacker had hit the windshield forcefully, shattering it, and then proceeded to smash the back window.

The second witness was the driver. His answers were not identical with his friend’s and in certain instances contradicted them (for example: it was dark, he could not see clearly, whereas his friend testified that the light was good and he could see well). This witness was less categorical about the identification of the attacker.

In cross-examination Atty. Ahlam Hadad insisted that the detainee in the court is not the attacker in the incident. The police, apparently, had been lax in its attempt to capture the perpetrator and in its investigation of the incident. While the perpetrator is at large, the prosecution is pinning the blame on the wrong man, depending on a witness who is eager to accuse someone, no matter who.

The defense plans to produce a witness who will corroborate Mustafa’s alibi.

The judge posed some particular questions to the witness, in an attempt to test his reliability. In the end the judge told the prosecution that according to the testimony heard today, there is no ground for conviction on the first count. The court will consider annulling it.

Evidentiary hearing is set for 21.11.11 at 9:30 AM. We will follow up.

 

Six more cases were processed later that morning – four on charges of rock throwing and other violent attacks – all detainees were minors.

One case ended with a plea bargain: after 2.5 months in detention, the defendant admitted to having thrown rocks and expressed regret. Since the incriminators in the case had difficulty identifying the defendant, the judge ordered jail time to coincide with time served (two and a half months), suspended sentence and 1500 shekel fine or a month in jail.

The other cases were postponed to 28.11.11 at 9:30 AM probably before Justice Sharon Rivlin-Ahai who was on sick leave today.

Among them: Abdallah Hassan Muhammad Shehadah (ID 402284079, Case No. 3496/11), 15 years old, from Qalandiya Refugee Camp. Atty. Samara hopes to reach a plea bargain.

Anas Haled Mansara(ID 402385215, Case No. 4021/11) represented by Atty. Ahlam Hadad. 

Translation: Marganit W.

We came specifically to observe the appeal by Ashraf Abu Rahmah from Bil’in, who is accused of throwing rocks during a Friday demonstration. Bil’in is not Tahrir Square and certainly not Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv, where politically neutral activists have become overnight heroes, and return peacefully to their homes the day after the demonstration. By contrast, the Abu Rahmeh family, who conduct non-violent protests against the illegal seizure of their land, continue to struggle, despite the suffering and bereavement they have endured.

 The son, Bassam (April 2009) – See B’tselem report

The daughter, Jawaher (the beginning of 2009) – See Haaretz report

They are both Ashraf’s siblings who were killed by the Israeli army during Friday demonstrations. Ashraf himself was lucky: he was only injured by a soldier who shot him at close range – by order of his commander – while he was standing, shackled and blindfolded, by an army jeep. See The Shooting in Ni’lin on YouTube.

The Israeli oppression continues: At the end of Friday demonstration on 21.10.11, Ashraf was arrested when the army invaded the village. Perhaps as retaliation for the penalty imposed on those who had shot him? His trial took place on 27.11.11 at Ofer Military Court before Justice Captain Zvi Frankel who decided to extend his detention until the conclusion of the proceedings. The judge rejected the defense’s motion for alternative to imprisonment, which prompted today’s appeal.

 Appellant: Ashraf Abu Rahmah – ID 906435698, Case No. 2448/11

Judge: Colonel Yoram Haniel

Defense: Atty. Gaby Lasky

Military Prosecutor: Eran Levi

 The discussion focused on the defense’s objection to testimonies by 2 soldiers who testified for the prosecution and which formed the basis for the indictment. The defense presented affidavits from witnesses who had been present at the demonstration as well as video clips, all testifying that Ashraf did not throw rocks. The defense claimed that “someone kidnapped the appellant from the scene and brought him to the police… we have no evidence as to who arrested him, where and why he was detained…“ When the judge asked for the prosecutor’s response, the latter said, “Based on the material in the file, I do not know.”

The defense said this is ground for unconditional release. Moreover, Ashraf was detained for two hours after the time the witnesses claim they saw him throw rocks, which was when the military jeeps entered the village. The video presented to the court shows the jeeps passing by Ashraf without arresting him. Only when he ran after them, waving a flag, was he nabbed and arrested. This is all recorded on tape.

The soldiers’ testimony is baffling. First, they stood behind a (new) wall 9 -meters tall, which prevented them from seeing the demonstrators, Moreover, while the commander claimed that he was able to identify Ashraf from a distance of 100-150 meters, under gas clouds, the other soldier testified that he saw the appellant from 5-10 meters, which is also inconceivable because of another obstacle – about 20 meters wide – that separated the demonstrators from the wall. Plus, there was a group of soldiers standing roughly at the same spot on the other side of the wall: where is their testimony?

The defense pointed out that there is a pillbox with a camera in Bil’in. A (female) observer testified that all the demonstrations are recorded there. The defense had requested to see the filmed demonstration, but to no avail. To the judge’s inquiry, the prosecutor said, “I have no answer at the moment.”

The defense protests Justice Zvi Frankels decision to accept the prosecution’s questionable proof and his disregard for her (the attorney’s) depositions, and, which is worse, for the personal circumstances of the defendant. She requested an alternative to detention, which will guarantee that Ashraf does not participate in Friday demonstrations. 

----------------------------------- 

                                             

A few days later, we were told that the appeal was rejected. Ashraf Abu Rahmah will stay in detention until the conclusion of the proceedings.

See article in Haaretz re Ashraf’s detention.

-------------------------------              

In the yard we met parents from Daheisha Refugee Camp. Their son, Ismail Faraj, age 19, was arrested 3 weeks ago, on 10.10.11. The army kidnapped (not arrested) him at 4:30 AM, as is their wont. The parents needed the help of the Moked le’Haganat Ha’prat to find out that the son was detained at Ashkelon Prison. At Ofer they were made to wait for hours for a hearing that lasted 3 minutes. They were allowed only to see him, not talk or touch, for just 3 minutes. His remand was extended, naturally. On the phone later, the mother told me that Ismail is a law student. He had been incriminated by someone, and the family has no idea what the charge against him is.  

Translation: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound

Judge: Lt.-Col. Shalom Dahan

Defence Attorneys: Firas Sabah, Fahmi Shkirat, Ahmed Saffiya

Police Investigators: Afif Mahmoud, Ronny Vadror

 

We waited half an hour for the amiable policewoman who always checks us to arrive.

While we waited, many uniformed people walked past us. One of the police officers stopped and asked who we were. “Are you from the organization for the defence of the murderers?"  This is the image of an Arab for a uniformed individual on duty – a murderer.

At 10:30 we went through the body-check and were accompanied into the courtroom. We entered while Justice Dahan was writing his summary in the minutes. Three investigators were seated in the court. One asked us right away: “Did you visit Gilad Shalit?” I answered, apparently not in a low voice. I asked an investigator (who was new to me) for a list of the cases to be heard. He had hidden the list under the files in front of him; when I tried to answer, the judge called me to order for disturbing. If I had a problem he said, I should turn to him…

When he had finished reading his summing-up, I spoke to the investigator again. Justice Dahan explained to him that it is in order to give us the list so we can copy it. The investigator said he would photocopy it and give it to us. I had my doubts about this, but there was no choice.

We received the photocopied list, from which the ID numbers of several suspects had been deleted with correcting fluid. We could not identify which one was the subject of the discussions – and could do so only in the final session that we observed.

Six cases were in the docket. Four of them had the same surname – Aliyan.

We observed the proceedings regarding three detainees. All three were represented by Attorneys Saffiya and Shkirat.

 Two of the detainees are aged 17.5 and the third is 21. The three appeared in court without a guard, and without handcuffs. When we first arrived in the court, we saw them talking with their attorneys in the corridors near the courtroom.

The three are charged with participating in demonstrations, throwing stones and bottles (not Molotov cocktails, as the judge made clear with the investigator’s help, but a bottle like, “Let’s say, Coca Cola”) and with activities against regional security.

The two aged 17.5 are from Bethlehem and Anata; they received, following consent of both sides, an 8-day extension. Their files will betransferred to the prosecution “unless other reasons come to light justifying a change in the agreement”.

As for the third detainee – Handa Muammed Aliyan, 21 – agreement was not reached. The defence attorney put questions to the investigator, among them: “Was the detainee arrested on the basis of incriminations?” The reply: “Yes, he was arrested three weeks after the incident, as the result of incrimination or intelligence material”.

Three statements were taken from the detainee by three different investigators, one of them – whom the detainee identified as Mussa (probably Moshe) took his statement using violence.

The judge noted the incident in the minutes, to the obvious annoyance of the investigator, who was present during the proceedings.

The detainee is suspected of a “very grave act which miraculously did not harm anyone” and also of throwing stones and of activity against regional security.

His remand was extended by additional 4 days.

                         

Translation: Marganit W.

General comment: Once again, there were no dockets. Ramadan, which began yesterday, was the reason that so few families attended and only few
courtrooms were operating.
In Courtroom 5 remand extensions were heard. The judge was Barak Jordan (the one who demanded an apology when one of our colleagues described his hearings as a "show" and threatened to sue us for 100,000 shekels if we did not apologize).

Prosecutor: Jenny Lubovsky (She refused to give Nery her last name: we finally got it from the protocol).
Defense: Nery Ramati

Defendant: Muhammad Abu Ayash, age 15.5.
The boy, a resident of Bet-Ummar, is accused of throwing a rock - with his brother - from the balcony of his home at soldiers carrying out operations in the village. Two soldiers testified: Gershon Reznikov and Lior Devosh.
They testified that they recognized the boy's face and clothes: brown shirt with yellow stripes. The boys deny the allegation. The prosecutor requested remand extension to complete the investigation, citing the soldiers' testimonies, which are identical.
Defense: The soldiers admit that there was no eye contact from the moment they saw the boys on the balcony until the rock hit. This weakens the credibility of the evidence, and requires the court to be extra careful.
Prosecutor: Indeed, there was a gap of several minutes, but eventually the soldiers reached the house. The suspects were identified from a distance of 20-30 meters. A few minutes later, reinforcement arrived and the soldiers broke into the house and arrested the boys.
Defense: The real question here is: the 15-year old defendant threw a rock that did not hurt anyone nor caused any damage. Couldn't the court consider an alternative to detention, which involves no risk? The alleged violation is low on the scale of endangerment: he did not cause damage, and he does not have prior convictions. Amendment 14 of the Juvenile Code states that detention until the conclusion of the proceedings should be the last resort and used only in extreme cases.
The attorney cited precedents and suggested posting bail, supervision by a member of the family, house arrest etc. The boys, the attorney pointed out, did not seek the soldiers to pelt them with rocks. The soldiers entered the village.

He added: If it were a Jewish boy who threw rocks in that area (i.e., the occupied territories), no court would send him to detention until the conclusion of the investigation.
Prosecutor: The defendant is 15.5, the typical age for such violations. He threw rocks from the balcony at a passing patrol. These soldiers, although they wear helmets, are more exposed than soldiers in a jeep, thus there was serious danger to their lives.
As for the difference between detention of Israelis and Palestinians, she offered this explanation: Of course, there's a difference between a Palestinians minor and an Israeli minor. The force (!) that comes to arrest a Palestinian minor is exposed to rocks and to threats to their lives. She added that there is no difference between Jew and Palestinians when it comes to the response to rock throwing.

Atty. Ramati retorted, "Sure, see the case of Havat Ma'on."
Judge's decision: Rock throwing should not be taken lightly. However, these days, when the case involves a minor, the tendency is to consider alternatives to detention. The minor will be released under these conditions:

5000 shekel bail until the trial, third party guarantee for the same amount, and injunction not to leave his home, except in order to report to the court.
The judge acceded to the prosecution and ordered a 48- hour delay in carrying out the decision.
Hearing set for 4.8.11 at 11:15.
The attorney told us that if the prosecution appealed the ruling, he, too, would appeal the amount of the bail.

Remand extension in the case of Yusuf Mussa Yusuf  Hawasha
Defense: Atty. Mahmoud Hassan
Judge: Barak Jordan
Prosecutor: Jenny Lubovsky

The defendant, a 45-year old resident of Bir-Zeit, is a member of a civil court (marriage, divorce, custody of children etc). He was arrested at home 18 days ago at 3 AM. He is accused of membership and activity in an unlawful association, in this case the Popular Front [for the liberation of Palestine].
As soon as the session opened, Justice Jordan declared the hearing 'in camera".
Attorney Hassan asked, "Did the prosecution demand an 'in camera' hearing?" The prosecutor consulted her papers and said something indistinguishable. The hearing continued in open court.
Prosecutor (reading from the charge sheet): Walid Habas, an incriminator, testified that he knows the defendant by the name of Abu-Yaffa. At the end of 2009 Walid Habas attended a meeting of the Popular Front, where Abu Yaffa was present. They met every other week to discuss the political situation, write graffiti and open new cells of the Popular Front. The incriminator claimed that the defendant was in charge of marches.
Even though the hearing was open, the defense asked the judge why he had wanted to hold it behind closed door. Did the court have prior information about the case? The judge responded, but I could not hear what he said.
Defense: Walid Habas testifies that he knows the defendant as Abu Yaffa, but gives no other details. Under such circumstance, how did the investigator find the defendant, who denies any prior knowledge of his incriminator? The investigators should have arranged a confrontation between the two in order to substantiate the charge. Had they done so, we would not be having this hearing. Did the investigator really want the truth (considering the contradiction between the claims)? The defendant is charged with participating in a political meeting where political issues were analyzed. There is no ban on meetings. The defense requests an alternative to detention.
Judge's decision: The defendant is accused of membership and activity in an unlawful association, The Popular Front. Since the end of 2002 until his arrest he was in charge of organizing marches for the movement. The prosecution is basing its charge on a statement by Witness No. 2 who states that at the end of 2009 he met the accused for the first time at a rally. The court does not question the credibility of the evidence, considering only if there is risk involved, based on the alleged evidence.
Remand extension until 10.8.11. Justice Shmuel Fleischman will hear the sides.

The trial of Ibrahim Afif Ahmad Bargouti
Judge: Barak Jordan
Prosecutor: Jenny Lubovsky
Defense: Ibrahim Nubani
Charge: throwing rocks
When soldiers came to his house to hand him a subpoena, the defendant,
together with other boys, threw rocks at them. The prosecution requests remand until the conclusion of the investigation. The defense requests an alternative to detention.
The prosecutor cites testimony by Witness No. 2, Sari Bargouti, who on
24.7.11 testified that when the army came to the house with a subpoena,
the defendant, together with others, threw rocks at the soldiers. Another
prosecution witness testified on 18.6.11 that many people threw rocks,
among them the defendant. The attorney points out that those testimonies
mention no dates, hence he objects to the arraignment.
The prosecutor counters that the statement "when the subpoena was presented" amounts to mentioning a date.
The judge points out that the charges refer to more than one instance of
rock throwing.
Prosecutor: Referring to the testimony of Witness No. 2, there's a span of two months in which rocks were thrown.
The judge says that in deciding a remand extension he has to be convinced that evidence exists proving the defendant's guilt, yet the court is not obliged to examine the evidence in depth. Based on the evidence in the file, and considering the risk involved in rock throwing, an alternative to detention is not warranted. He orders the defendant remanded until the conclusion of the proceeding. Next hearing is set for 10.8.11.