Remand Extension

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: Marganit W.

 Morning and Afternoon

While Hava attended the evidentiary hearing of Bassem Tamimi, I walked into Courtroom 4 to check the remand extension hearing of two girls from Um Fagara village, (near Yata) in the South Hebron Mountains who were arrested on 24.11.11.

The background to the arrest: That day the army entered the village with 2 bulldozers and 5 jeeps and demolished two houses (one belonging to one of the defendants) and a mosque, both built without permits [as if inhabitants of South Hebron Mountains, which is in Zone C, could ever obtain a building permit. The purpose of the occupation is to harass the area residents, who are dirt poor, until they leave the area, which Israel covets for its own settlements].

See a film documenting the arrest

See article by Amira Hass on the same subject

 The two girls are detained in the Russian Compound in Jerusalem.

Judge: Major Zvi Heilbron

Prosecutor: Major Nathanela Kola

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati and Atty. Akram Samara

Defendants:

-Amal Jamal Mussa Hamada, ID 855070850 -  17 year old minor

-Sausan Mahmud Hassin Hamada – ID 852634138 0- 21 years old student in Yata

The prosecutor presents the judge with the police investigation file where the violation is detailed. the charge is: attacking a soldier.

While the representatives of the Civil Administration, together with soldiers and Border Police came to demolish her house, Sausan picked up a stone [later described as a ‘rock’] and hit a BP officer on the hand. Sausan was arrested. Then Amal came on the scene and poured water on the officer.

(read a description of the incident by CPT [Christian Peace Team located in Hebron and the South Hebron Mountains] activists and compare the two versions)

 The prosecution agreed to Amal’s release that day (perhaps because she is a minor, or because squirting a soldier with water is not such a serious violation) in return for a 4000 shekel deposit,

The defense explained that Amal cannot afford to pay such a sum: she is the daughter of a destitute shepherd, and besides, her house has been destroyed.

He wanted to know if the prosecution intends to press charges against Amal.

Prosecutor: We’ll examine the evidence and proceed accordingly.

The judge’s decision: He’s willing to consider reduced bail, plus third person Israeli guarantor (me) to insure that the defendant shows up for a hearing, should one take place on 21.12.11.

As for Sausan, the judge stated that according to the police report the defendant held a rock, which she intended to hurl at the BP officer. She was deterred with pepper spray.

The prosecutor moved for a 4 day remand extension to prepare the indictment, but the judge, acceding to the defense, instructed the prosecution to produce the indictment by 14:00 the next day, thus extending the remand by one day.

The judge also ordered the Prison Authorities to provide Sausan with a coat, after seeing the girls shiver, since they were wearing the same clothes they were arrested in 4 days earlier.

I wondered how the released underage girl was going to get home that day, with no money and no proper clothes. My concern proved well founded: She was released from the Russian Compound detention center in the evening. An Israeli friend of the family who inquired where he could pick her up was told to wait for her at Qalandiya Checkpoint. The man waited for 5 hours only to learn later that the girl had been released at Bethlehem Checkpoint. Amal reached home at 10 PM.

The next day, at 2 PM I reported again to the court to find out about Sausan. The judge agreed to release her on a bail that was much higher than Amal’s – guaranteed by the above-mentioned friend of the family. The judge imposed on her a house arrest in Yata. The prosecution, however, requested 48 hours to consider an appeal. Thus Sausan was not released that day.

Her father, who attended the hearing, had brought clothes for her, and so did the family friend.

The next day, I brought the clothes to the Detention Center at the Russian Compound, which was not a nice experience either.

In the end, Sausan was released on Thursday evening. This time two activists waited for her at Bethlehem Checkpoint to drive her home. But they waited in vain, because she was released at Damascus Gate in Jerusalem (thus turning her into an Illegal Sojourner in Israel). A taxi driver took her home.

Thus ends the detention part of the saga of the two girls. We shall wait for their trial.

That day and the next I attended evidentiary hearings in the case of Bassem Tamimi where the prosecution had summoned two minors to incriminate him.

I attach 2 press releases sent by ThePopular Struggle Coordination Committee entitled “I testified under duress” and “We were instructed to incriminate him.”

Translation: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound 

Judge:  Col. Dahan

Police investigator: Moshe Levy

Defence Attorney: Attorney Maamoun Hashim

 There are three cases in the docket.

Wassim Nadal Suleiman Asaid – ID 850474669,resident of Hebron 

The police seek a remand extension of 12 days. The suspect was arrested on 9.11.11. This is his second remand extension. 

The charges: activity against regional security, membership in a hostile organization, conspiring to commit a crime. 

In his opening statement, the police investigator recites familiar sentences …it transpires from the investigation material that the interrogation of the suspect is at its peak… 

Defence Attorney Hashim does not take this sentence as a given, and in the three charges in which he represents the detainee, he asks stringent questions, and persistently asks the police investigator, who consistently gives the same answer: “I refer you to the confidential report; sum up, Maamoun, you’ve already asked that question...”. 

Justice Dahan attempted to add information that didn’t really add anything. 

As a result of what he learned from the discussion between the parties, Justice Dahan requested that it be noted in the minutes that he requests the various relevant factors to allow the detainee to meet his attorney before his remand is extended - so that the attorney can learn more about the state of the investigation of the detainee whom he represents, 

The meeting will be held before the remand extension hearings. It will contribute to the deliberations over the extension, and will be beneficial in the sense that the attorney will ask the investigator fewer questions and can get relevant information from the detainee. 

The investigator explained that this is problematic, if the detainee is under interrogation at the same time, or if he is barred from meeting an attorney, or … 

Another subject that recurred throughout all the deliberations was that the defence attorney wanted to know “How many” interrogation activities are still needed. 

The investigator explained that he was poor in mathematics, and didn’t study statistics at university. He doesn’t like quantifying, because it’s incorrect.

The judge read the file, and on the basis of the grave suspicions he saw there, ordered another 8 days of investigations.

Ahmed Khadr al – Fattah Abu Maria, from Beit Ummar, ID988047163

Arrested on 19.10.11. 

Charges: Activity against regional security, membership in a hostile organization (Hamas).

The police requests another 11 days for the investigation. 

The first two cases are related: Abu Maria passed an explosive belt to Wassim. Both of them denied the charge. 

Decisive questions were answered by… “I refer you to the confidential file”. 

The defence attorney persisted:  how come this is the fourth remand extension, yet still no progress has been made! 

The Judge's decision: another 8 days. 

Iham Said Abed al Jalil Jarba’a – resident of Bitin, near Nablus  

ID 852344373

The investigator requested another 18 days. 

The suspect was arrested on 21.11.11. 

Charges: Activity against regional security, membership in a hostile organization 

This is his first remand extension but it is the second arrest for an offence for which he was already tried and released less than a year ago, due to lack of evidence. 

Now he is being investigated again. He is a student of business administration at the university of Bir Zeit. 

The detainee said that he had undergone interrogations for many hours consecutively, and that he was not allowed enough sleep. 

The judge extended his remand by another 15 days and noted in the minutes that the detainee should receive the appropriate hours of rest.

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: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound

Judge: Col. Dahan

Police investigators: Shoshani, Hafif, Yitzhak Weizmann, and an investigator who declined to give his name

Defence Attorney: Maamoun Hashim 

There were four cases in the docket: 

Balal Abed Ouda Alla Bel – ID 946905924

Ali Muhammad Ibrahim Alian – ID 859829426

Muhammad Gazi Salame – ID 852275486

Kamel Salim Suleiman Suarka – ID 904086634

 There was no interpreter in the court today, and no stenographer. Justice Dahan assumed both those roles; he keyboarded and also translated the proceedings in a detailed way to the detainee.

 It was the same court as always, the “actors” were the same (investigators, defence attorneys, detainees…), but there was a difference: the approach of Justice Dahan. He treated the detainees like human beings, entitled to correct and detailed explanations and updates. He related straightforwardly and respectfully to all parties.

 When we reached the court, the discussions regarding the first  detainee, who was in civilian clothes, were underway.

 His remand was extended for another 48 hours. The judge also ordered that the evidentiary material be photocopied and given to the defence attorney by the following day, so that he could present his arguments on 26.10.11. He also advised Attorney Hashim to be prepared for a hearing at Ofer concerning an alternative to detention, the sum of money to be deposited, where the detainee would be, and where he works. 

On the other hand, the judge told the investigator that there are no grounds for the detention if the only reason is transferring the case to the prosecution.

Balal Abed Ouda Alla Bel – ID 946905924

Justice Dahan explained to the detainee what is happening in court – in Arabic, since that is the detainee’s language.

The parties reached agreement: the case will be transferred to the prosecution on 27.10.11.

Muhammad Gazi Salame – ID 852275486

Police Investigator: Yizchak Weizmann

Before the proceedings began, Justice Dahan explained to us that the case is about a minor, and said that he would decide to allow our presence in court only if the minor was interested in it. The minor is accused of throwing stones. The investigator accompanying him refused to disclose his name. Not even for sake of public of holding a public hearing. He explained to us that since he is investigating a minor, there’s no need to give his name… 

The minor was not interested in our presence.

Kamel Salim Suleiman Suarka – ID 904086634

Police Investigator: Yitzhak Weizmann. 

Charge: murder of a policeman in 2009. 

The detainee has been interrogated by the police and the GSS for 37 days and has still not confessed. Investigator Weizmann says that the investigation is proceeding according to a plan which includes cross-linking of information in order to reach the truth. 

The detainee is a Bedouin farmer who owns 100 dunams of land. 

I do not describe the riveting hearing in detail, because I’m not sure about all the details, and prefer not to report inaccurately. 

The judge’s interim decision ordered the police to perform a certain examination (that the defence attorney is barred from hearing about, and we too - of course) until the afternoon of the following day. 

He will read the thick investigation file and the minutes of the previous remand extensions (this is the fourth) and then, after receiving all the results of the examination he requested, will give his final decision.

Translation: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound

Judge: Yair Nahorai

Police investigator: Nissim  Argaman

Defence Attorneys: Ma’amoun Hashim, Firas Sabah, Fahmi Shkirat

9 cases in the docket.

Justice Nahorai tried to mediate between the defence attorneys and the investigator, so as to reach agreement before the proceedings began.

Today too, like last week, it was not easy to obtain the list of names whose cases would be heard that day. Instead of two lists - the usual number - there was only one list – it was of course in great demand, and we were only able to take a glance at it.

Detainees were brought in and out quickly, without being identified, we had no way of knowing which case was being discussed between the judge, the investigator, and the defence attorney.

The judge insisted on not allowing the police investigator to add more investigation days “than necessary”. Alas – this week the Investigations Department will be closed for five days on the Rosh Hashana holiday, so most of the remand extensions would be 9 days.

The investigator asked for extensions ranging from 9 to 22 days. The 22 days (the first extension) was ultimately reduced to 15 days.

We could not be sure who was brought in, or how many days extension the judge decided on.

The judge argued with the investigator about the need for the extensions.

The decision that Justice Nahorai wrote in most of the minutes (in my own words):

“…after great hesitation and after I was told that the Investigations Department will be closed during the holidays and investigations cannot be performed, I grant an extension of 11 days, though otherwise I would have ruled not more than 4 days…” 

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: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound 

Judge: Avri Einhorn

Police Investigator: Omri……

 Attorneys: Ma’amoun Hashim, Firas Sabah, Fahmi Shkirat

                      There were 7 cases in the docket, in 6 of which of suspects banned from meeting an attorney.

Ibrahim Kada Muhammad Darawi – I.D. 852802671

Defence Attorney: Fahmi Shkirat

 Charge: Activity against regional security. The police requests another 15 days. A ping-pong of questions and answers took place between the defence attorney and the police representative. The police officer’s answer to all the questions asked was the usual: “I refer you to the confidential material”.

For example:

Q. “Is the detainee a member of a specific organization?”

A. “I can’t answer that.”

Q. “Has the suspect linked himself to military activity?”

A. “Can’t answer that.”

The defence attorney sought the court’s intervention, and the court instructed the investigator to “answer the defence attorney’s question”.

 A. “Partially”.

The defence attorney then asked “Partially yes, or partially no?”

Assisted by the judge, the investigator answered “Yes, partially”.

After the summing up, the investigator asked us to leave the court before the detainee was brought in for questioning, without the presence of an attorney and other people. We presented the recommendation of the preliminary injunction of the Supreme Court, asking judges to consider our remaining in the court for hearings, to grant a public character to the deliberations. Mr. Einhorn, the judge, read the recommendation attentively and pointed out that even the families were not present in the court. The investigator explained that not all the families have the option of entering Jerusalem. Since the preliminary injunction does not state specifically that the judge is obliged to keep us in court as “the eyes of the public”, he decided that he did not agree for us to remain. We asked for it to appear in the minutes that he refused to have us present in court.

 The judge’s decision: 15 additional days of remand.

Hassin Ali Hassan Kawasme – ID 933405375

The detainee is banned from meeting an attorney; this is the third request to extend his remand.

 The defence attorney: Ma’amoun Hashim

 Kawasme has been detained since 9.8.11.

The charge: Murder, in the Jerusalem central bus station.

 The police seek another 15 days remand.

In this case too, the defence attorney tried to obtain information about the need for a further extension, about the hours of investigation, and the health of the suspect. The answers were identical. The defence attorney’s persistence irritated the judge.

In his summing-up, Ma’amoun Hashim stated his surprise that the GSS  published in its press release that “a a terror unit had been captured", incuding information withheld from the suspect’s defence attorney. On one hand, there is a gag order, yet on the other hand confidential material is published in the press.

After the defence attorney finished presenting his summation, we were asked to leave. The judge informed us that a note concerning his refusal for us to be present in the part of the questioning of the detainee at which the defence attorney is not present, would appear in the minutes.

We left the Russian Compound. It has been two months since we were last in this court… and absolutely nothing has changed. 

General note: Again, we found no dockets. Only after our request did we receive the lists from the interpreter.

Upon our arrival at 10 AM we encountered a man who told us he had come to retrieve his bail money, following his acquittal. He had been there since 8:30. When we left the court at 12, he was still there. The officer said, “Just because he’s been waiting for a long time doesn’t mean he can get his money back right away (but when he was enjoined to deposit the money, it had to be right away.) The man was sent someplace (we could not hear the name) and left the compound with us, after four hours and without the money.

Justice Shmuel Fleischman’s court

In most cases the prosecution requested a deferment.

During the discussion Atty. Ilya Theodory asked the judge why he was not providing the defendants with the protocols of the hearings of their cases. In reply the judge asked: What do the defendants need the protocols for? Atty. Theodory insisted the protocols be given to the defendants so they can study them in prison, consulting other prisoners, some of whom are lawyers.

Jihad Nabil Jamil Alza’abaneh – Case no. 3176/11

Accused of leaving the area without a permit.

Defense attorney Issam Mrar seeks a plea bargain. The defendant has been in jail for two months. He accepts the charges but refuses to strike a bargain. He does not want to be represented by Atty. Mrar.

The judge tells the defendant that he has no choice. “This is not ‘At Your Request ‘program” (his exact words). The court nominates a judge from a given list and the defendant has a choice to be represented by that attorney or not to be represented at all. [Is this the procedure inside Israel as well?] The judge further explains the advantages of this arrangement. When a defendant admits his guilt, the penalty is reduced; this mitigation will not prevail if he insists on an evidentiary trial. The defendant insists on a trial.

The hearing is set for next week, 17.8.11

Later we attended the trial of Farid Muafek Farid Za’abaneh – ID. 911530756. He, too, is accused of leaving the area without a permit and also of “damaging the fence.” Atty. Mrar was appointed by the court to represent him.

Prosecutor Jenny Lubovsky tells the court that on four occasions the defendant entered Israel illegally, once through the fence. Such violations, she claims, are very burdensome for the security forces. In the last few years, this has become a major concern for the army. The damage to an army installation is in itself reason for a harsh sentence. We soon found out what damage Farid Za’baneh had caused. He had jumped over the fence and was captured at A-zaim checkpoint. This is the reason that the prosecution demands a stiff punishment.

Defense: The defendant admitted right away that he had entered Israel several times without a permit. Thus he saved the court precious time. He is getting married next month, and the wedding has already been postponed because of his arrest. He has no criminal record; he works in construction and has 6 brothers whom he helps to support. He’s been in jail for almost 2 months. This period should suffice and the court should take into consideration his economic situation.

The judge asked the defendant a few questions:

Q: Why did you enter Israel?

A: I want to work.

Q: Tell me about yourself, your parents, your siblings.

A: My father has diabetes. I went to school for 8 years. Two of my brothers are married.

Q: Does your mother work?

A. Yes. (it is not clear he understood that the judge asked if she is  ‘gainfully employed’)

Q: You understand that you are getting a suspended sentence, and if you are caught again, you will be sent to prison for a longer period. How can I make sure you don’t enter Israel illegally again?

A: I learned my lesson.

Decision: Taking into account several considerations and the defendant’s personal circumstances: 70 days in jail, starting with his arrest (60 of them he already spent in detention), 6 month probation and 2000 shekels fine or a month in jail.

Yussuf Mussa Yussuf Hawasha – ID. 941810558– case no. 3803/11

Remand extension.

Prosecutor: Jenny Lubovsky

Defense: Mahmud Hassan (from A-Damir organization)

Hawasha, a resident of Bir-Zeit, is accused of membership and activity in an unlawful association. Since the end of 2009 until his arrest – or thereabout – he was a member or an operative of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. He organized their parades.

He was arrested after being incriminated by Walid Habas who identified him in a photo and claimed that he saw him at a meeting in 2009. They used to meet every other week to discuss the political situation.

The defense asks to postpone the hearing so he can study the GSS report before the next hearing.

Here is a précis of the previous hearing that took place on 2.8.11.

The defense finds holes in the testimony. The witness knows the defendant as Abu-Yaffa and gave no other identifying details. He did identify him in a photo, but the question is: how did the interrogator get a picture of the defendant while the latter denies knowing his incriminator. The investigators should have confronted the two in order to substantiate the claim. The fact that they did not confront them proves that the investigators were not trying to find the truth.

The trial will continue on 14.9.11

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.