Holding Combat Materiel

Translation: Marganit W.

We entered the court compound without a hitch. Only remand extension hearings were held today in two halls. All other hearings were re-scheduled due to conferences. We were told that the attorneys and the families had not been informed of the change.

In Courtroom 2 remand extension hearings were conducted for a docket of 32
"Days Detainees".
 

Judge: Lieut.-Col. Shmuel Kedar
Prosecutor: Atty. David Gabai Richter

About half of the detainees have no charge sheets yet. Their interrogation has been completed; all have violations involving "risk factor". The prosecution enumerates some of the violations and requests remand extension to complete the indictment. At this stage of the procedure the interrogation material is confidential: the attorney is not familiar with the evidence presented to the judge. The judge examines the file and within minutes decides on how many days are required for the prosecution to complete the indictment.
Other detainees (17 today) do have charge sheets. Some confess to at least a few violations. Based on their admission, their attorneys bargain with the prosecution for reduced penalty (plea bargain). The judge declares that he is not OBLIGATED to accept the agreement, but he eventually accepts it - since the suspect has confessed, thereby saving the court's precious time, or conversely, since there are "evidentiary difficulties" in the file  (the prosecution may not be able to prove its case while the admission in itself is not sufficient to convict). Thus, the court prefers to impose a reduced sentence, without convincing evidence, rather than release the suspect, taking into account circumstances such as no prior record, the age of the suspect, the state of his health etc.
 

Detainees who do not confess during their interrogation, have their detention extended for several days, until "conditions are ripe" for a plea bargain, when they confess to acts that they did or did not commit, hoping to shorten their jail term. (The few detainees who adamantly refuse to confess will have to fight for their innocence in a long evidentiary trial.)
 

Today's session included detainees with and without charges, some who confessed and others who denied the allegations. They were all represented by an attorney; most had relatives in court. A considerable number of violations involved illegal stay in Israel. This all too common violation is usually coupled with other charges, such as "causing damage to the separation wall," using false papers, possession of a knife, fleeing the police and attacking a policeman or a soldier. For example:
 

Abdulrahim  Muhammad Mahmud Znobar, ID 990000952 - Case 1040/12
Defense: Atty Issam Mrar

Znobar is accused of staying in Israel without a permit and causing damage to a military installation (the separation fence).
The detainee is 51 years old. He has been sitting in court since early morning: his case came before the judge only toward noon. He speaks fluent Hebrew and tries to explain his situation, but the judge tells him repeatedly, "Tell it to your attorney," refusing to let him speak.
The prosecution moves to detain the suspect until the procedure is complete.
The suspect admits to having crossed the fence illegally, but he insists that there was already a hole in the fence.

The attorney explains that his client crossed into Israel to receive donations from an organization that operates inside Israel, helping him with medical expenses. He was caught right away (and captured on camera), but no tools were found on him with which he could have broken the fence (the attorney specifically mentions a disk saw, which is heavy and unwieldy). The police report contains contradictory statements by an observer and by security forces patrolling the area. The defense presents documents testifying to the detainee's severe, life threatening medical condition.
The judge rejects the prosecution's motion and releases the accused under
limiting conditions: a 5000-shekel deposit with third party guarantee of 5000.
Arraignment hearing is set for 13.2.12 before Major Meir Vigiser.
 

Other cases heard today were also marked by blowing routine occurrences out of proportion.
A boy in detention for 12 days is charged with carrying, possessing and producing arms. It turns out that the boy was collecting bullets and shells found in a field near an army base located close to his village.
Perhaps he intended to use these for some purpose, but the judge decided to accept the plea bargain struck between the sides, declaring the 12 days already served as actual jail time, plus a suspended sentence of 3 months for a year and a 1000 shekel fine or a month in jail.

The boy could be released today, if he paid the fine.

Harabi Abed Rabba, ID 952905669 - Case 1043/12
Defense: Atty. Rony Salman
A 45-year old shepherd, father of 8, living in the mountains near Yatta, where he tends to a flock of 80 sheep.

He looks out of place in the court: neither a city dweller, nor a farmer - someone living outside familiar circumstances.
During the hearing for his remand extension, he was charged with endangering human life in traffic, using a - suspected - stolen vehicle, fleeing from the police and possession of a knife.
The judge rejects the defense's motion and sides with the prosecution that argues for clear and imminent danger and flight risk. The file, he claims, points to severe violations.

In a session that took place on 17.1.12 – a week later - this case was presented before Justice Lieut.-Col. Menashe Vachnish. The file already included a charge sheet. The prosecutor was Captain Mazi Mekonen.
Harab Abed Rabbe admitted trying to flee the police for fear that his vehicle would be impounded since it had no registered owner and was about to be taken apart.
The defense explained that his client is a simple man, detached from urban life, living in the mountains with his family and flock, having minimal contact with people, and he had never been in trouble with the law.

The defense pointed out discrepancies in the officers' testimonies regarding an
assault. He requested the court to release his client under any conditions the judge sees fit, since detaining him would wreak havoc on his family: there is nobody to take care of his flock.
Two brothers of the accused were in court, ready to "assume full responsibility for him", meaning, presumably, that they guarantee he won't "flee from justice" and report to court, if required.
In his decision, the judge refrained from addressing the differences between prosecution and defense, ignoring the main charge of fleeing from the police and attacking an officer. The judge declared the accused 'dangerous' because he drove a condemned vehicle, thus endangering life.
This, according to the judge, was the reason for the arrest, and this is why the man is a flight risk. [The judge may not know it, but "ownerless" vehicles, which are unregistered and uninsured, are commonly used by locals in the Palestinian enclaves of C area].
The judge ordered a remand extension until the conclusion of the proceedings and set an arraignment hearing for 13.2.12 before Justice Meir Vigiser.

Russian Compound

Judge: Shmuel Fleishman

Police interrogator: Moshe Levi

Lawyers:  Ma'amun Hashin and Abu Ahmed Munzer

Suspects:

Ahmed Razek Mahmud Issa, ID 85197732   

Muhammad Saleh Muhammad Bader, ID 852478940, prohibited from meeting a lawyer.

 The remand extension hearing of today exemplified again what it means for Palestinian civilians to be judged by a military Court. The former IDF military advocate General Avichai Mandelblit expressed recently his conviction that it was wrong that a military court should judge civilians. He, of course, referred to the settlers, while completely ignoring the fact that in the reality of the occupation, for years and years Palestinian civilians are being judged by military courts.

 An Israeli military judge can not be entirely neutral towards a Palestinian civilian, whom, in his capacity of an Israeli officer, he regards as belonging to a hostile population. The language of the court is Hebrew, which is not understood by the majority of the suspects, and the translation is done by a IDF soldier, who was trained briefly in court language, and whose competence is questionable. There are no relatives of the suspects in the court room who could give the suspects some reassurance, because the Russian Compound is located in the middle of Jerusalem, and Palestinians from the West Bank cannot get a permit to enter Jerusalem. 

 Suspect Bader was serving a 2 year sentence and was arrested from prison on 28.12.11 and charged with membership in an unlawful association. Since the morning of 9.1.12 he is prohibited by the General Secret Service from seeing his lawyer. He stands alone, without legal protection, in front of a hostile police investigator, while the judge who has insight into the confidential material attempts to separate the fighting sides: the police interrogator, who does not want to release information and the defence lawyer, who tries desperately, like a blind man, to find nevertheless his way and to detect some small pieces of information. The contest between them is conducted in high tones and loud voices and by and by the courtroom turns into a market place. The police asks for 15 days of remand extension. The judge agrees to 12 days.

 But also in the case of the suspect who is allowed to see his lawyer, a great deal of information of the interrogation is hidden in the files that contain confidential material, so that the defence lawyer has to feel his way through the labyrinth of the case of his client. The relevant information is usually to be found in the "secret file".  

Advocate Ma'amun Hashin exclaimed after an unsuccessful attempt to find out if his client was on hunger-strike: "my hands are bound like the hands of my client".

 Suspect Ahmed Issa was arrested on 5.12.11 and has, after 5 remand extensions and countless interrogations, not confessed. He is suspected of dealing with arms. The police cannot provide evidence, but asks for another 15 days of remand extension. The judge agreed to 12 days.

 The impression of the observer is that the Palestinians have no real chance in the military court to achieve justice. This impression is corroborated by findings of a Yesh Din report from 2007, that only 0.3% of the defendants were found to be entirely not guilty.

Translation: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound

Judge:  Dov Gilad

Police investigator: Oshri

This morning only one detainee was brought for extension of his remand.

He has been detained since 24.10.11 and was now brought before a judge for the first time. He maintains that he has been detained for eight days and was only taken out of his cell once, to complete the investigation.

The detainee Murad Jabari, 31, is a fruit and vegetable vendor, from Hebron.

He does not have an attorney. According to the judge, the police claim that his family was told that he was detained, but the family did not appoint an attorney for him.

The judge allows the detainee to speak at length, and ascribes his ‘generosity’ to the fact that the detainee has no defence attorney (we wonder whether the judge would be so warm-hearted if we weren’t present in court – would he have made excuses for the court minutes?). The detainee’s statement was translated patiently and meticulously by the interpreter, and recorded by the stenographer. We did not hear the police investigator at all, he may have spoken before we came into the courtroom.  He requested a remand extension of 8 days.

From the detainee’s statement, we learned that he is suspected, while trading in fruit and vegetables, of dealing in firearms - hand-grenades. He maintains that he has nothing to do with the charges, and is willing to help the investigators…that Israel is a law-abiding nation, and that he wants to be released before the upcoming holyday (Id al Adha) to be with his family. He relates that he was detained in the past and was finally released in 2003…for years he possessed a permit to enter Israel, even when closures were in force … criminals had got him into jail, for a secret case…

The judge’s decision: “After examining the investigation material..and reading the suspect’s  admission and that of another detainee… the suspicion is reasonable, and the investigation should continue for further 8 days - until 7.11.11.

The family must be contacted to arrange an attorney for him.”

Before he was removed from the court, the detainee asked to appear again before a judge on the coming Thursday (the usual day for remand extensions).

The judge says “I will not intervene in this”. We have heard this sentence for years in different contexts, from many judges who preside over courts of detention conducted in the military court in the detention centre. They have a defined and restricted role in a permanent ceremony, and it’s rare for any of them to try and direct events – or even to influence the process that’s determined by the detention-centre authorities. Most of the judges whom we encounter at the Russian Compound Court – though not all of them – make a point of refraining from taking any initiative.

Translation: Marganit W.

General comments: the trial of Fadel Tamimi (released on bail) was scheduled for 9:30 in Justice Fleischman’s court. For almost an hour we tried to obtain the relevant docket, then we realized his name was not on the list. This is not the first time something like this happens. Apparently, trying to come for a particular hearing is a bootless attempt.

Courtroom 4

Judge: Etty Adar

There were 20 hearings scheduled with a variety of charges.

Maher Makrum Abed Alrahim Bourkan – Case No. 3405/11

Defense: Anwar Abu Omar

Charge: membership and activity in a hostile organization. The defense requests a deferment. The hearing is set for 17.8.11. The detainee, who has been transferred from Etzion Detention Center to Ofer, requests that his personal effects be transferred with him. The judge makes a note of that.

Ahmed Ali Aliyan Al Radaida – Case No. 3135/11

Defense: Assam Mrar

Charge: Possession of stolen goods

The hearing was deferred to 21.9.11.

Ibrahim Othman Mahmoud Alhamuz – Case No. 3102/11. The detainee is released on bail and came from outside the detention center.

Defense: Hamzi Abu-Mazer

There is a revised charge sheet, following a plea bargain: In August 2009, the defendant bought a vehicle in Hebron– a Renault Express - without a license. He then put a fake license plate on it and drove it. The defendant accepts the charges. He is convicted of forging a license or ‘part of a vehicle’.

Grounds for plea bargain: The defendant is married with 4 children. Both sides request that the sentence be given later, after the defendant pays the fine (not specified).

Sentencing is set for 15.8.11 when the defendant will be summoned to court.

Omar Mahmoud Mumhad Rajoub – Case No. 1181/11

Defense: Tawheed Shaaban

There is a plea bargain. The revised charge sheet cites membership and activity in an unlawful association. From the beginning of 2006 until his arrest he had been a member of a Hamas cell under the leadership of Yunis Muhammad, another activist. Since 2008 he has been under another operative, Ayoub Hussein. He distributed posters, took part in Hamas parades, dressed in uniform and face cover. At the beginning of December 2010 he contacted Ayoub Hussein in order to organize activities commemorating Hamas inception day. He requested flags and posters, but he was arrested before he could carry out his plan. Grounds for plea bargain: the defendant has no prior record; he accepted the charges, and his activity consisted only of hanging posters and marching in parades. There was also evidentiary difficulty (which, however, was no ground for dismissing the charges).

During the plea bargain, the defendant recanted his denial of the charges.

Sentence: He is convicted of membership and activity in an unlawful association. 15 months in jail, 12 month suspended sentence for 5 years and 5000 shekel fine or 5 months in jail.

Here’s a peek into the working of the courts and the authorities of the prison security staff:

Atty. Shaaban represented several detainees in this court. At one point, he went out and brought in 3 members of the family of a detainee not yet in court. A few minutes later a prison guard noticed that the number of relatives in the court exceeded the allowed quota and stopped the proceeding to investigate who was there unlawfully. Shaaban was obliged to escort the three ‘unauthorized’ members out, only to let them in a short while later when their relative’s hearing began.

We also noticed that the prosecutor was talking on her cell phone incessantly, stopping only to present the penalties agreed upon in the plea bargain, then  resuming her phone conversation.

Ayoub Hussein Hassan Al Awada, Case No. 1004/11

Defense: Tawhid Shaaban

Upon agreement a memorandum hearing was set for 4.9.11.

Iham Muntazer Ahmed Alrahima, Court case No. 5314/10

Defense: Jamal Hatib

Charge: Membership and activity in a hostile organization

The defense requests a deferment to complete a plea bargain.

Mumhad Ibrahim Hassan Faroun – Case No. 1611/11

Defense: Jamal Hatib

Charge: Possessing and trading in combat materiel

The defense requests deferment until after Ramadan. A plea bargain is being negotiated. All the evidentiary material has been submitted.

Hearing set for 21.9.11.

Mussa Ali Abed Al Jalil Jabarin – Case No. 3021/11

Defense: Muhammad Shadfan

As per a plea bargain: the charge is possession of weapon since 2008. The defendant kept in his home in Sa’ir a sniper rifle M1, 3 cartridges and 16 62-mm bullets for use with that rifle. The weapon was captured during a search by security forces.

Grounds for plea bargain: The defendant has no criminal record; he accepted the charges, saving the court’s time. The rifle was bequeathed to him by his father and he did not use it for any security violation, nor did he intend to do so. The defendant is 45 years old, has two wives and 13 children.

Sentence: 7 months in jail, 2000 shekel fine or 2 month in jail, 10 months suspended sentence for 4 years if he commits another weapon related violation. (The defense said that the defendant fired the rifle once, but apparently with no intent to cause harm).

Muhammad Abed Alhamid Said Awad – Case No. 3061/11

Defense: Akram Samara

Charge: possession of combat materiel

The defense requests setting the pre-evidentiary memorandum hearing for after Ramadan.

Hearing set for 14.9.11.

Translation: Marganit W.

We came to observe a trial, which did not take place that day.
Only two courts were operating. Most hearings were remand extensions, but no dockets were posted on the doors. There is no device for posting the dockets and the list of hearings is three days old.

Courtroom 5
Judge: Lieut. Avshalom Meushar

The small courtroom is filled with the usual din of lawyers, prosecutor, judge, detainees and family members talking to each other. The judge dictates to the typist, rephrasing statements by prosecutor and defense.
And above it all, the interpreter's voice, like a muezzin, fills the air.

Diaa Alsheikh - Case No. 2292/11, ID 410835581
Defense: Atty. Muhammad Jabarin
Diaa Alsheik, from the village of Bidu, is accused of trading in combat materiel. He was arrested in May 2011 for agreeing to supply a gun to people who had approached him. The testimonies were taken in December 2009 and were based on a conversation that had taken place in 2007.

In 2010 Diaa Alsheik was arrested for throwing rocks. In January 2011 he was
convicted and was in jail until 10.3.11.
The attorney raised some crucial questions. The testimony was taken in 2009.

A year later Diaa was in an Israeli jail. Why was he not interrogated?
Why was he interrogated two years after testifying about an event that had taken place two years before his deposition?
No police line-up was arranged, and it is not clear that the name mentioned in the interrogations is actually his.
It is not at all clear that he agreed to provide a gun when asked to do so.
The prosecutor responds that an indictment could not be submitted without
further evidence.
The judge concludes that detention is not warranted. He explains the reasons, adding a significant fact: Witness No. 8 stated that after the conversation with Diaa, the subject was dropped because they thought that Diaa was connected to the PA and might inform on them.
The judge sums up: "From this testimony I deduce that his denial of the attempt to purchase an M16 may be substantiated. The testimony was given on 20.12.09 whereas the defendant was convicted and sentenced on 8.1.11.
There is a fundamental flaw in the process, and there is no reasonable explanation why the prosecution did not use interrogation records it had in its possession since December 2009.
The judge adds that Witness No. 5 failed to link the defendant to the purchase of the M16, and that the attempt to obtain the gun happened 2 years before the December 2009 testimony. "These circumstances point to insufficient evidence. The prosecution mentions rock throwing, but the incident does not appear in the indictment."
Diaa was released under the following conditions:
1000 shekel deposit - third party guarantee of 10,000 shekels – reporting to the police once a week.
However, the temporarily released detainee is from Bidu, a village in the Ramallah district, which is separated from its surroundings by a separation fence or wall. In order to report to the police he has to obtain special permit to cross the checkpoint.
The judge struck down the need to report to the police.

Judge: Eran Laufman
Defense: Atty. Munzer Abu Ahmed
Category: remand extension

The accused, Abed Alkader Shaur, about 50 years old, is a spare parts for cars
dealer. He is dressed in civilian clothes and wears a Palestinian worker's cap. He is an odd-man-out among the youngsters who usually sit in the dock.
 

This story has many of the typical elements of the military courts and the occupation.
During the trial I spoke to a policeman from Lahav 433 unit, whose job is to apply "effective and swift enforcement; a professional and sophisticated response to organized crime and to  fight against public corruption." The policeman told me that Mr. Shaur is suspected of dealing in stolen spare parts and possession of stolen goods. On 9.6.11 he was caught on Allenby Bridge with about 500 car and engine parts, which he planned to sell in Jordan.
So what's wrong?
The policeman explained that the Oslo Agreements state that the PA is barred from importing spare parts. Palestinians can import new cars but not parts; so if Mr.Shaur has in his possession vehicular spare parts, they must be stolen - from Israel - and on their way to "chop shops".
The attorney later explained that the Oslo Agreements also contain other clauses governing spare parts, but they are not relevant to our case. What matters is the police claim.
Later, Atty. Abu Ahmed told me that only 28 engines found in Mr Shaur's possession are suspect. The prosecutor, who was in civilian garb, also belongs to Unit Lahav 433. She requested remand extension of 18 days to complete the investigation. Towards the end of the hearing however, amid the haggling over the length of the remand, a new charge appeared: The judge read in the documents that the defendant is a resident of Hebron - it says so on his ID card. The attorney insisted that his client is from Shuafat. Hebron, said the judge. Shuafat, said the attorney.
"So you're saying that he is an illegal sojourner? " asked the policeman, who had joined his colleague, the prosecutor.
It turns out that Mr. Shaur has two wives, one in Hebron, one in Shuafat. Most of the time he resides with his second wife, but the Civil Administration registered him in Hebron. Thus, he must be a resident of Hebron. Whenever he stays with his second wife, he is automatically in violation of the residence law, even though Shuafat is a borderline case: it belongs to Jerusalem municipal jurisdiction but receives services from the PA.
A veritable mess.
The judge's decision: There are grounds for remand extension, but since the report is confidential, the judge did not specify the length of the interrogations. They can also be conducted simultaneously. Shaur is to be detained for only 11 days, until 17.7.11 at 17:00.

Judge: Avshalom Meushar
Defense: Madhat Hamamra
Defendants: Saad Ahmed Ibrahim Alzaoul, 17.5 years old and Ayoub Ahmed
Ibrahim Alzaoul, 14. They are brothers from the village Hussan. The older brother is very short and even though he has an incipient beard, looks stunted (due to poor living conditions?)
The parents were present in court. The father told Hava that 40 boys from Hussan had been incriminated and charged with throwing rocks.
Charge: throwing objects with the intent to hurt, and throwing rocks on a road "during the month of August or thereabout, in Hussan or thereabout" (exact quote from the indictment).
The attorney requests a postponement until next Tuesday in order to Xerox the investigation material and prepare for the hearing. Apparently such an indictment [without mention of date or place where the alleged crime was committed] is admissible in this court. Is such an indictment admissible in an court inside Israel as well??

Translation: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound

Judge: Shmuel Fleischmann

Police Investigator:  Fares Jabar

Advocate Anan Odeh represented the detainees in the two hearings which took place today.           

There are 2 cases in the docket, one of a person barred from meeting an attorney.

Farras Nasser Sabti Barghouti, I.D. 904010264

Last week the detainee was prevented from meeting his attorney. From the judge’s summary we understood that the detainee asked to complain about the way he was interrogated. The detainee submitted a written complaint (by means of his lawyer). The judge referred to that letter, in which he claimed that he was not given time to rest, and was hit during the interrogation.

He was barred from meeting an attorney until Thursday. His attorney,Maamoun Hashim, met him once the bar was lifted.

Following the questions of Atty Odeh, Judge Fleishman informed him that an answer to the complaint had arrived. He read and signed it.

The police requests another 19 days of detention to continue the investigation.

The detainee is suspected of the following felonies: activity against regional security, membership in a hostile organisation and combat materiel (unclear whether for trading or possession).

As always, there was an exchange of questions and answers between the defence attorney and the police investigator. Today the answers were slightly more detailed, but mostly longer, and the summary was as always: 'it's in the confidential report'.

For example:

Question: Activity against regional security, clarify what activity.

 Answer: Activity endangering regional security. I cannot provide the details at the moment, the material is in the confidential report.

Question: What does he admit to?

Answer: Membership and activity.

Question: Does he admit?

Answer: Partially, there are other directions in the investigation that we need to examine in order to reach the truth.

Question: What do you intend to do next?

Answer: Several more interrogation actions, to examine the suspicions that we have against him. There are other suspects connected to the same offences. Contradictions have arisen in the suspects’ versions. We have to examine what is the correct version.

Judge Fleishman read to the defence attorney the timetable of the conducted interrogations after the detainee submitted his complaint letter. He said that the timetable in fact seems reasonable to him. In the middle of one day of interrogation, there was even a visit by members of the Red Cross.

The defence attorney summed up and argued that 45 days of interrogation is certainly a substantial period for an investigation. Nevertheless, the police still want 19 more days. During part of the interrogation period, the detainee had been barred from meeting an attorney. He requested to reduce the number of investigation days, and if possible, to transfer the case to the prosecution.

The judge’s summation:

The matter of the suspect’s detention has been discussed twice (at the detainee’s request) in the military Court of Appeal. His arguments were rejected. The investigation is very complex, and each time that the suspect is interrogated, the investigators discover new suspicions. Moreover (the judge cites a paragraph in the confidential report), there are grounds for the suspicion that the detainee is concealing things.

He also notes that he received a detailed explanation regarding the suspect’s complaints about being hit.

Nevertheless: this is a matter of a suspect detained since 18.4.11 His continued detention and interrogation is necessary.

He extends detention by a further 11 days, for the purposes of the investigation.

Sam Odeh Rantissi, ID 978392371

The suspect is prevented from meeting his attorney from today, for another 4 days.

The police investigator requested 15 more days. The suspicions: membership [in an illegal organisation] and activity against regional security. The defence attorney requested details. The investigator replied: I can't give you any.

The suspect was arrested on 22.5.11. For part of the time he has not been allowed to meet an attorney. He admits to the suspicions 'in a very partial way'.

He was incriminated by people, some of whom are under investigation.

The suspicions "are very serious, a question of general and also specific activity that I cannot specify' - from investigator’s reply to questions by the defence attorney’s representative.

We were removed from the court [seen that the detainee was barred] and the suspect was then brought in. 

Translation: Marganit W.

Week of Passover

Appeals court

Judge: Sgt.-Major Ronen Atzmon

Naal Samir Habib Halabi – Case No. 1531/11

Defense: Iliya Theodory

Charge: membership in a student association: the respondent was chairman of the election committee of an organization that arranges parties and ceremonies, publishes a paper and has ties to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The appeal was lodged by the prosecution, which demands detention until the conclusion of the proceedings. An earlier court had released him.

The court’s decision was based on mistaken identity. The respondent was described as redheaded and fair skinned (he has black hair and is swarthy), and yet the prosecution bases its case on that identification, as well as on the statement of an incriminator who had left the organization in 2009, before the period relevant to the case; however, he participated in elections in 2009 and 2010. The prosecution also complained about the 7-month delay in presenting the indictment, citing earlier cases where judges ruled that delay does not minimize the risk. In this case the risk is based on the fact that the respondent has a suspended sentence of 18 months for 5 years, starting on 12.9.06 for the same violation. Even if there is a fault in the identification, the earlier court’s decision to release the accused, because of the suspended sentence needs to be changed because of the suspended sentence.

Attorney Theodory, representing the respondent, raised a general objection to the way the police conducts its identification line-up, which consists of presenting only a picture of the suspect and asking leading questions. He argued that the court ignored the fact that 24 photos have to be shown, not just 7 or 8, and in each case the suspect’s photo should be inserted in between the other seven, while an attorney is present.

The attorney asked the court not to rely on the incriminator’s testimony in this case, since he had left the organization before the relevant period. In addition, the respondent says he was studying journalism at the time, while his accuser said he studied sociology. Theodory cited a case in which a member of the Popular Front was released, and the prosecution did not appeal. In addition, the respondent had to pay a fine of 15,000 shekels. His father lives in Jerusalem and his mother lives in the Occupied Territories, which the defense claims, minimizes the flight risk.

In sum, the attorney moves to reject the appeal.

(Both parents were present in court and carried on a “conversation” with their son from their seats in the back of the hall).

The judge did not hand down a decision, nor did he indicate when he might do so.

Nabil Muhammad Ali Abu Saifan – Case No. 1477/11

An elderly man. His son (about 30) sat in the hall, but there was no eye contact between the two. A plea bargain was reached adding 3 months to a suspended sentence for a year. The charge is possession of a gun and bullets. So far the accused has been in detention for 75 days.

Atty. Firas, who represented him in the trial, was not part of the agreement: it had been arranged with another attorney.

Saleh Muhammad Saleh Shamasna – Case No. 1522/11

Charge: throwing rocks on ten occasions.

The prosecutor says that the language of the incrimination indicates intensive activity on the part of the respondent. He cites a decision stipulating that in cases of violent disturbances, the threshold of evidence needn’t be high. As for arguments for release, which cited the respondent’s age and his clean record, the prosecutor claimed that it was not a one-time occurrence, which warrants consideration: the period in which the violations were committed span over 5 months.

Atty. Nubani pointed out that at first the respondent’s name was not included in a list of violators, only later was his name added. The judge showed the defense a list of incriminated people and pointed out that the respondent’s name was first on the list. The attorney retracted his claim, saying it was “a grocery list”.

Other defendants claimed that they did not know the respondent; some denied that he had participated in rock throwing. The defense asked for consideration for his client’s young age and his clean record and requested that he be allowed to go back to school, especially in view of the fact that he had posted a 10,000-shekel bail.

The prosecution again stated that the respondent had admitted he knew the incriminator, thus any claim about mistaken identity should be rejected.

No decision was handed down and no mention of when it might be.

Yussuf Awwida – Case No. 1484/11

The detainee asked to defer his hearing because he wished to be represented by Atty Abu Amer, who apparently was not informed about the hearing today. The detainee was aware that this might prolong his detention. Surprisingly, the prosecution asked that this procedure not be repeated, even though the accused was already detained until the conclusion of the proceedings, since the hearing of this case had already been deferred twice. The judge acceded to the defendant’s request, so he could have the representation he wanted.

The hearing was set for 1.5.11 (until that date there are no hearings in this court because of a Druze holiday).

Appeal in the case of Musaeb Rashdi Rashad Atrash – Case No. 1521/11

and Aata Said Yacub Abu Ramuz – Case No. 1520/11

Atty. Ahmad Munbir stated that an internal police investigation is underway regarding the  allegation that the police attacked these boys (who themselves are accused of attacking a policeman). According to the defense, the boys went to the Cave of the Patriarchs to hand out invitations for the wedding of Musaeb’s brother. There was some pushing and shoving at the Southern gate, which resulted with the boys being accused of pushing a soldier (who was not hurt). When the boys lodged a complaint at the Kiryat Arba police station that THEY had been pushed by security forces, the policemen cursed and beat them; as a result Musaeb’s arm was broken. The cast is now off the arm, but Musaeb has to undergo an operation on his pinky (the attorney points to the digit). The two boys have been in custody for almost 40 days, and consequently Musaeb missed his brother’s wedding. The attorney noted that such cases usually end up with a deposit at the police station, but in this case the police used excessive force. Moreover, no videos were shown as evidence of the incident where the alleged pushing occurred, even though there are at least 20 cameras there. The attorney requests alternative to detention.

The prosecutor counters that the police acted lawfully and used reasonable force.

The judge asks the prosecutor what the penalty would be if they were convicted: the punishment may not exceed time already served in detention. The prosecutor did not know the answer. He said several policemen testified about the defendants’ conduct and that testimony was sufficient, hence no videos were necessary. He argued for ‘endangerment’ since every attack on security forces constitutes endangerment. Musaeb has a prior violation: he was accused of possessing a knife and did not show up to one hearing in his case.

The attorney explained why his client did not show up, describing the hardships involved in trying to come to court from South Hebron Mountain: the hours-long wait at the checkpoints and the 100 shekel travel expense (when the daily wage is 50).

The judge concluded the hearing by requesting the prosecution to produce a video of the incident, if one exists (the prosecutor argued against it). He also reminded the prosecutor to find out what the punishment would be if the defendants are found guilty (they may have already exceeded the jail term).

Translation: Marganit W.

Courtroom 7: remand extensions

Judge: Moshe Levy

There are 26 cases in the docket. Most of the detainees this morning are young. Some look like minors.

Muatez Mussa Ahmad Banat – Case No. 731/11. A school kid.

Charge: throwing rocks at Israeli vehicles near his village, on 3.6.11 (together with other boys). The incident resulted in broken windows in one car and in damage to others.

The prosecution requests detention until the conclusion of the proceedings. It maintains that the evidence is conclusive, based on incriminatory testimony. Two other youths who took part in the incident were also detained and sentenced to 7-8 months in jail.

The judge noticed that Muatez is using crutches and demands an explanation from his attorney, Jalid Ihab. No explanation is supplied. It later transpires that one of the drivers of the vehicles, claiming he feared for his life, shot at the defendant and injured him. 6 months later the defendant pressed charges against the settler at the police station. This led to his arrest about 8 months after the incident. Atty. Ihab argued that the delay and the defendant’s condition (as a result of the injury) make him a low security risk, requiring no incarceration.

The defendant denies the allegations.

The judge agrees that the defendant is not a flight risk since he went to the police to lodge a complaint by his own initiative. However, the judge argues that the security risk does apply: it was not just a case of throwing rocks but of inflicting damage by a large [how many exactly? M.M.] group of people. Add to this the testimony of his partners in crime who linked the defendant to the incident, and the conclusion is: detention until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Arraignment session set for 30.3.11.

There were no family members in the courtroom. Muatez kept looking at the door waiting for his mother (?) to come. As soon as the hearing was over, the GSS officer urged him to leave, pulling him outside.

Wassam Ramadan Darwish Abu Ramuz – Case No. 1756/11, 14.5 years old, from  Hebron.

Defense: Atty. Noubani

The prosecution requests detention until the conclusion of the proceedings. The defendant was incriminated by prosecution witnesses (2 and 3), soldiers who watched him from a nearby rooftop; they recognized the defendant by his clothes, which matched those he wore at his arrest.

The defense objects. There is only one charge, based on incrimination. The defendant denies the allegation insisting that he did not throw rocks. It is not clear from the statements how far the rocks were thrown and if there was eye contact. The incrimination is full of holes. It is not clear what part the defendant played. He has no prior record, meaning he poses no security risk. His age, too, should be taken into account.

The judge notes that no family member is present. Atty. Noubani says he did not check to see if any family member arrived.

The judge finds for the defense: In normal circumstances the charge would lead to detention because of security risk. However, in view of the defendant’s age and since his collaborator was not charged (the prosecutor explains that due to BP mistake, the detainee has disappeared – the case is under investigation), he releases the defendant under the following conditions:

1. 5000-shekel bail. 2.  third party guarantee for 10,000 shekels. 3. The defendant will report to the police station near his home every Sunday.

Arraignment session is set for 4.4.11 in Justice Sharon Rivlin-Ahai’s juvenile court.

The prosecution requested a 72-hour delay in carrying out the decision; the judge granted 24 hours to allow for an appeal.

We were told later by the defense attorney, that the prosecution decided  n o t  to appeal.  But the attorney did not know, whether the kid had indeed been released on bail. He no longer represents him. 

Abed Alrahman Muhammad Ahmed – Case No. 1863/11, 20 years old.

Defense: Atty. Abu Ahmed.

The prosecution requests remand extension until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Charge: infringement (or an attempt at infringement) of the law: on 7.3.11 he tried to enter Israel without a permit, using someone else’s ID card.

The defense objects. The defendant has an entry and work permit to work at Mishor Adumim area. The authorities conduct an examination before issuing such permits, especially for someone as young as this 20 year old. Thus, there is no security risk. As for flight risk, the defense suggests that Israeli citizens vouch for him and post bail to assure he reports to trial.

Judge’s decision: The appellate court has ruled in earlier cases that this violation warrants detention because of the flight risk. I see no reason to deviate from this ruling. The defendant tried to enter Jerusalem while his permit was limited to Mishor Adumim, thus the risk flight remains, and he is remanded in custody until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Arraignment session is set for 6.4.11 before Justice Dahan.

Sami Omar Abu Gouda– Case No. 1853/11, 14 years old.

Defense: Abu Ahmed

Charge: throwing objects

By agreement between the sides, and in view of the evidence, including the defendant’s admission of guilt to the police and the officers’ testimony, the defendant poses a security risk, despite his young age. Hence, detention until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Arraignment session set for 4.4.11 before Justice Sharon Rivlin-Ahai.

Abdelhadi Salah Muhammad Abu Turki– Case No.1833/11

Defense: Abu Ahmed

Prosecutor: The defendant was captured at the checkpoint of the Cave of the Fathers (in Hebron) with a knife in his possession. He did not surrender the knife to the security personnel; it was detected by the magnetic detector. He was asked to go through the machine twice, and only when he lifted his shirt was the knife discovered. Its blade is 9 cm long. Thus, a security risk exists, and the prosecutor requests detention until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Defense: the defendant found the knife, and forgot all about it by the time he reached the checkpoint. He made no movement indicating he wanted to use the knife. He claims the knife  was in the pocket of his coat, which he took off for the security check. If the hearing is at the end of the month, his detention will exceed the customary period for such cases, in case of conviction. (the defense cites a precedent supporting this argument).

The judge’s decision: there is clear potential for danger in possessing a ‘cold’ weapon such as a knife, especially these days [a reference to the massacre at Itamar – M.M]. In a case where the accused tried to conceal a knife, there is argument for security risk, hence remand extension until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Arraignment session set for 23.3.11 (the date was a concession to the defense that claimed the remand may lengthen the incarceration, if he is convicted).

Awad Abdul Hamdi Halil Abu Zlata– Case No. 1814/11

Defense: Abu Ahmed

Charge: possession of combat materiel (guns, cartridges, military equipment) and refusal to report to the police.

The defense acknowledges the evidence, but objects to the detention.

The incident happened in 2008.

Decision: There is no contention of the details in the charge sheet and in the defendant’s statement to the police. The charge of possession warrants security risk. The defense argues against detention because the violations were committed at the end of 2008. Since then, many attempts were made to arrest the accused and interrogate him, but he managed to evade the police. The reasons for his evasions are not convincing. There is also reason to consider him a flight risk. Hence, detention until the conclusion of the legal proceedings.

Arraignment session set for 30.3.11

Hagit’s report:

Courtroom 5: remand extensions

Judge: Lieut.-Col. Ami Navon

Prosecutor: Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Tarek Bargout

Naji Tamimi, one of the leaders of the popular struggle against the separation fence at Nebi Salah, 47 years old, was arrested on the night of 6.3.11 on charges of incitement to throw rocks over many years - since the second Intifada.

The prosecution bases its case on incrimination by a boy, Islam Dar Ayoub [Tamimi] from 23.1.11. It requests remand extension to prepare the indictment.

The defense requests an alternative to detention, adding that many people are willing to post bail for him.

The judge decides on a 5-day remand extension, until 17.3.11.

Naji’s family and a group of supporters are present in court.

The prosecutor carries a gun on his shoulder. I have never seen an armed prosecutor in court before. This is rather horrible. I did not have a chance to investigate this new phenomenon.

 Translation: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound

Judge: Shmuel Fleishman

Police investigator: Bashir Amar

Defence Attorney: Fahmi Shkirat

There were two cases in the docket.

Firas Akal Muztafa Dar. I.D. 949794234

Since no woman police officer was available to perform a physical check on us (a prerequisite for entering), we entered the courtroom after discussions had begun. The defence attorney was apparently trying to prove that there is no reason to extend the suspect’s detention, because he does not admit to any of the charges attributed to him.

From the judge’s summary we understood that there is a problem with a document that the investigators did not place in the file, and this is hampering him from making a final decision. Investigator Nissim Argaman entered then exited, to clarify the matter.

Meanwhile the judge started to dictate his decision:

The suspect was arrested under administrative detention on 21.1.11. Since 8.2.11 he has been held in regular detention conditions. Today they discussed the fourth remand extension. During part his detention, the detainee was barred from meeting an attorney.

The file contains confidential reports from previous remand extensions. This is where the problem cropped up: the suspect’s file contains no document concerning his being barred from meeting an attorney, or about the removal of the prevention. It is not clear if the prevention was removed yesterday, or the day before yesterday.

Judge Fleishman added that the suspect linked himself in his statement to offences that, though they are relatively old, are liable to harm regional security. The police representative argued that a grave offence is attributed to the suspect, and it must beinvestigated.

At this point the discussion was halted so that the head of the investigation team could explain to the judge ex parte the confusion created due to the missing document (I must note that we failed to understand the problem).

The head of the team spent some time in a discussion with the judge and with investigators Nissim Argaman and Amar.  We observers stood outside, with the defence attorney, the detainee and four policemen fromthe Nachshon unit who were guarding the detainee.

We heard that the detainee is fromTzurif village, and that he is suspected of ‘connections with weapons’.

The head of the team came out, and we all went back into the courtroom.

From the conversation between the defence attorney and the judge, before the team-head came in, it seemed to us that the judge actually intended to release the detainee, but the intention was foiled following the judge’s conversation with the head of the investigation team.

The judge explained to the defence attorney that an injunction prohibiting a meeting [with an attorney] was in force until 5.3.11, and that the defence attorney had not been told that it was removed. (The defence attorney noted that such a notification would not have helped him, because the detainee was held in an area to which the defence attorney has no permit to enter). The injunction was issued on 3.3.11 and expired on 5.3.11. The judge instructed that the minutes show that he requests a written explanation why there had been no notification regarding the removal of the injunction. He also requested a copy of the letter explaining the absence of the document concerning the removal of the injunction, so he could examine it.

The judge added a further 8 days remand for investigation purposes, noting that progress had been made in the detainee's investigation. Progress was slow, but existed.

Az-addin Abdelaziz Hassin Hamidat, I.D. 913978359

(see previous reportdated 21.2.11 re this case)

Agreement was reached to transfer the case to the prosecution on Sunday. The judge asked whether the detainee has any medical problems, and the detainee replied that yes, he suffers from headaches and has kidney problems. Yes, he had seen a doctor who gave him medication: yes, Acamol [Paracetamol!!!].

The judge asked to record in the minutes his request that the doctor check the detainee concerning his complaint about kidney problems.

Translation: Diana Rubanenko 

Russian Compound 

Judge: Maj. Menachem Lieberman

Police investigator: Moshe Levy

Defence Attorneys: Maamoun Hashim, Firas Sabbah, Fahmi Shakirat, Aamer Yassin. 

There are 7 cases in the docket.

Musaeb Awad Tzalah Abid – ID 918789702

Defence counsel: Att. Firas Sabbah

He was arrested on 12.1.11. The police is asking to extend his remand for another 12 days, for the purposes of the investigation. 

The charges against the detainee are ‘membership and activity in a hostile organisation’.

The questions of the defence counsel are short - and the replies of the investigator are even shorter. 

First question: Is the charge connected to his work? The detainee represents cellular phone company Cellcom in the Occupied Territories, and it seems that he's being mainly interrogated for transferring money to Gaza (although this does not appear explicitly on the charge sheet). 

Reply: It’s in the confidential report. 

We also learned that the charges are connected to a recent period, and are also in the category of military activity. 

Defence counsel sums up: The suspect is accused of transferring money and providing a service. The suspect claims that everything that he did was performed lawfully. He deals in cellular phones, and as such he has financial matters connected with Gaza. 

The detainee requested to specify that he has no security or criminal record. When a customer pays him, he doesn't ask where the money comes from.

He adds that he is a student. 

The judge’s decision: There are serious accusations against the suspect. I learned from the file that there is room to extend his remand for another 12 days, for investigation’s purposes. 

Hassin Amin Hassin Kalalwa – ID 939079554

Defence Counsel: Fahmi Shakirat

He was arrested on 25.12.10. The police asks for another 18 days. 

The charges: ‘membership and activity in a hostile organisation, ‘holding combat materiel’, ‘abetting’. 

Defence asks: Is it true that the suspect has linked himself to the Koran lessons he gives in the mosque? Does he link himself to ‘combat materiel’?

The reply: It’s in the confidential report. 

Defence counsel specifies that the suspect says that he has hardly been interrogated over the past week of his detention, and he asks: Is this true?

The investigator again refers to the confidential file, but Justice Lieberman adds that the suspect was interrogated three times, but only for very a short time. 

Summing up: the judge rules that there is no reasonable explanation for the suspect having been held during the latest extension, without the extra days being used for the investigation. Taking into account the long period of detention, he therefore sees no justification to acceding to the police’s request. There are still grounds for investigation, however.

He rules 8 days.

To our surprise, we again saw Abdullah Hashem Abdullah Jubara – ID 936110626, age 17. 

Once again we meet this young man, who is unafraid and straight-backed. We look for his attorney, Naji Aamer, but again we don't see him nor any of hisfamily members. 

The police once more requests  8 additional days, with the defence counsel’s consent.

The judge’s decision:the investigator requests 8 more days. The young man was arrested on 6.12.10. He was involved in the grave incident, in which an Israeli was seriously wounded (the charge appearing on the first request for extension is: ‘took part in ‘disturbance to the public order’). He adds that he has received an agreement signed by all the parties to an extension of 8 days. 

Despite the agreement, he thinks that the period of detention has already exceeded the bounds of the reasonable, taking into account the young age of the detainee and the charges against him. He usually does not tend to breach agreements, but this time he will diverge from his usual practice.

Instead of 8 days, he rules 7 days,  and in fact decides to transfer the file to the prosecution. It will be interesting to follow the representation of young Abdullah Jubara. 

Previous reports on this case:      27.12.10    /   3.1.11/      10.1.11

Louai Fahmi Abed Al Majid Nasser al-Adin, ID 043135623

Defence counsel:  Att. Aamer Yassin

The wife and brother of the detainee are present. The wife is in the late stages of pregnancy. 

Counsel has filed an appeal over the number of extra investigation days that the police is requesting. He asks for the case to be transferred to the prosecution within 24 hours. Attempts to reach agreement have failed. The investigator proposes (and claims that this is an outstanding suggestion) another 7 days. The defence does not agree. In his summation, he explains that even though his appeal was dismissed, the Court of Appeals suggested that in view of the advanced stage of the investigation, the necessary actions will take place during the detention period. It was emphasised in the appeals court that considerations of the internal investigation team (work schedules, or work pressure) should not be deemed considerations to be taken into account in justifying the continued detention. 

The judge’s ruling: he agrees with the remarks of the defence counsel and the Court of Appeals.

He gives the police 30 hours to transfer the file to the prosecution, and asks for the records to write down that the time is 12 noon.

See previous report:    10.1.11