Sentence

 

Translation: Marganit W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next hearing is set for 18.1.12.

 

 Translation: Marganit W.

Morning + afternoon sessions

Norah’s report:

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

I report on hearings in Courts 5 and 7.

Courtroom 5

Judge: Major Shmuel Fleischman

Prosecutor: Captain Avishai Kaplan

Defense: Atty. Lymor Goldstein

I was present at the following hearings:

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

See earlier reports of this case: 7.6.10 and 3.11.10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some of his pearls of wisdom:

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

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

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

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

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

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

All this was said with a smug smile.

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

The defendants:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Throwing objects [rocks] at moving traffic.

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

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

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

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

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

 

Courtroom 7

Judge: Major Meir Vigiser

Prosecutor: ?

Defense: atty. Lymor Goldstein

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Hava’s report

Courtroom 1

Judge: Major Etty Adar

Prosecutor: Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Atty. Labib Habib

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

 Handbook for Guerilla Warfare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Explain the photos you mentioned.

A: We went house to house mapping the inhabitants.

Q: What does that mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: Yes.

Q: But the protests continued?

A: Yes.

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

A: Yes.

The trial will resume on 28.11.11.

 

  

Translation: Marganit W.

Milli’s Report:

I entered Courtroom 3 [Court of Appeals] while an appeal was in progress. I did not have the necessary details and I mention this hearing in case we want to follow up on this case in the future.

The prosecution appealed the acquittal of a Palestinian (about 40 years old) charged with kidnapping and assaulting an Israeli Arab. The man was acquitted because the accuser was abroad and did not report to court despite repeated extensions.

The defendant sat in court with his wife and an interpreter.

The judges suggested rescheduling the trial seven months from today, allowing the prosecution to complete the investigation. The acquittal will be revoked and the defendant will be under house arrest. The deposit will be reduced.

The sides were given two weeks to respond.

 

In Justice Etty Adar’s court I attended the trial of Bassem Tamimi, ID 959225640 –

Case No. 2058/11from Nabi Salah.

He was arrested at the end of March 2011 and his trial began on June 5 2011.

(See previous reports in MW website from 31.3.11 and 5.6.11.)

(the protocol [Hebrew] was forwarded to us by Yonatan Pollak)]

 

Prosecutor: Atty. Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Atty. Labib Habib

 

Prosecution Witness No. 2 (first to testify) is Arnon Yahav, investigator at the Police Intelligence Unit in Judea-Samaria.

The prosecutor asked for confirmation that the interrogation was carried out in a pleasant atmosphere and that the witness had signed the defendant’s statement. The statement was presented to the court. Its content is not detailed in the protocol. Atty. Habib asks the witness why Roy Vanaspi had been interrogated. The witness says he does not remember that investigation. Nor can he explain why he looked at photos taken by Roy Vanaspi [the attorney asks, “So you just looked at the pictures for no reason?” to which the witness replies: “We don’t do things for no reason. I am being paid to do certain things.”]

The defense claims that the investigators started looking at the pictures only after 12.1.11, not before, because it was then that the defendant’s investigation began, and they were looking for testimony that would incriminate him.

The attorney asks if the typist who typed the interrogation was a police plant and that’s why she was present at the interrogation (since the interrogator can enter the data himself), but the witness could not say what the typist’s special functions were.

The defense asks why the interrogator confronted the defendant with Islam’s testimony, who incriminated him, but not with Omar Dar Ayoub who testified that the defendant never incites people to violence. The witness replied that since he did not depose Omar Dar Ayoub, it was not his job to confront the latter’s testimony with the defendant’s [but regarding every other question, the witness said that he relied on information found in the case file – M.M.].

The defense claims that the investigators do not have testimonies by soldiers who were present at the time and saw the defendant commit the crime. The witness says: if such testimonies exist, they should be in the file.

[Judging by the interrogator’s replies it’s strange that he disagrees with the attorney who told him that he described himself (the witness) as “small fry” – M.M.]

 

Prosecution Witness No. 3 (No. 2 in the witnesses list) is Moshe Madiuni , from the same police intelligence unit.

Again the prosecutor ascertains that the interrogation was conducted according to the rules and the signature on the defendant’s statement was properly obtained.

The witness answers most questions with “I don’t remember if this was included in the file…” The defense focuses on photos, and again the claim is that the interrogators examined the photos of the demonstrations only after Bassem Tamimi’s investigation began, because they were looking for incriminating evidence against him, not because they were tracking rioters.

The attorney points out that seven or eight times the defendant was not present in the village during demonstrations, as he attended a Red Cross course; the witness states that they could not verify the alibi because it is impossible to contact the Red Crescent in the Territories. [Note the “helplessness” of the Security Forces – M.M.]

This witness, too, is asked why the defendant was confronted only with witnesses who incriminated him, and not with those who testified that he did not take part in the demonstrations. The witness replies that it is not his job to be the defendant’s defense. The attorney counters that an investigator’s job is to search for the truth.

The next hearing in Bassem Tamimi’s case is set for Wed. 2.11.11

[It is hard to determine whether the investigators just did not bother to prepare themselves before testifying and did not read the file before going on the witness stand, or they were just feigning ignorance. Either way, they showed disdain and disrespect for their own testimony, a sentiment probably reflecting their self confidence regarding their status in the court – M.M.]

 

Hagit’s Report

Courtroom 5

Judge: Major Shlomo Katz

Prosecutor ??

 

There are 31 cases in the docket covering various charges and at various stages of the legal process: arraignments, reminders, evidentiary, arguments for sentencing.

A third of the defendants have been in custody for at least 10 months (judging by the number of cases bearing the 2010 date).

There was a big commotion in the court: five or six attorneys came and went, relatives were ushered in and out, waiting for their sons’ turn even though some had already been brought in, shackled. Many cases were deferred to a later date, others were summarily processed based on agreements between the sides that were presented to the judge and heard outside the court.

Unit “Lahav 433” arrived: it included civilian prosecutor and defense. They brought 3 defendants. The military court then heard cases of car theft and motor switching perpetrated by Palestinians from the Occupied Territories against Israeli citizens.

In the middle of this mess, the hearing of the evidentiary trial of Mawiya Taisir Yassin Natshe (Case No. 4260/10) took place. He is represented by Atty. Muhammad Jabarin. Mawiya has been in detention for 14 months charged with several violations: membership in an unlawful organization (Hamas), attempts to collect money to buy arms and to carry out suicide attacks, in collusion with another Hamas operative. The prosecution claims that he tried to go to Jordan for training, but his plan was foiled when he was arrested.

The judge “sees justification” for the acceptance of a plea bargain: there are evidentiary difficulties. In other words – which are clear to everybody – there is no proof for the allegations, at least not beyond reasonable doubt.

We are used to the court finding a solution to this common problem of insufficient evidence.

After 14 months in custody, the defendant is ready to accept a revised charge sheet, and he is sentenced even when there is no convincing proof for his culpability.

The sentence: 28 months (i.e. 14 additional months) and a 6000 shekel fine.

 

 

  

 

Translation: Marganit W.

Courtroom 4

Judge: Captain Etty Adar
Defense: Atty. Habib Labib
Prosecutor: Major Michael Avitan

Defendant: Bassem Tamimi - Case No. 2058/11, resident of the village of Nabi Salah.
(For background see previous reports and website of the Popular Struggle Coordination Committee)
 

Three witnesses for the prosecution did not show up. A discussion of the subject ensued.
Even though summons are supposed to be delivered by hand, in this case they were done by phone. The Chief Interpreter is called in to testify that he has personally summoned one of the witnesses, which enables the prosecution to issue a subpoena for him.
Another witness (Islam Dar Ayoub, 14 years old) is sick; he must present medical papers or else be subpoenaed. 

A third witness will be summoned again, because it is not clear that he was actually contacted.

Atty. Labib says that when the law is ignored and the summons are not delivered by hand, at least there should be a record of the phone call, otherwise, the witness cannot be blamed for not showing up.
Evidentiary hearings are rescheduled for 28.8.11, 4.9.11, 11.9.11, 21.9.11 and 25.9.11.
Atty. Labib requests a postponement of Islam Tamimi's testimony for as far a date as possible, since the trial-within-the trial in his case is still on

(for background see here).

The prosecutor objects without giving a reason, and the judge asks him to reconsider. It is determined that in any case Atty. Labib will be given a week's notice before Islam Tamimi is summoned.
The prosecution is enjoined to submit a list of its prospective witnesses as soon as possible.

Courtroom 4 (continued)

Judge: Captain Etty Adar
Defense: Atty. Tareq Bargout
Prosecutor: Major Michael Avitan
 

Defendant: Naji Muhammad Abed Allatif Tamimi - Case No. 1955/11, resident
of Nabi Salah, age 49.
(Background can be found in previous reports)
The judge reads the charge sheet (no Arabic translation).
As part of a plea bargain, Mr Tamimi accepts the charges: incitement to participation in illegal marches, incitement to rock throwing, organizing violent, illegal demonstrations, instructing youth groups to act against and compromise the status of security forces; chief instigator, inciter and leader of mass disturbances.
The judge cites precedents of penalties imposed on 2 Bil'in residents charged with incitement, on which she bases her verdict:
Adeeb Abu Rahme - 18 months in jail
Abdullah Abu Rahme - 16 months in jail
Naji Tamimi's verdict (relatively lenient, according to the judge): 12 months in jail (starting with his arrest on 6.3.11 - see previous report), 21 months suspended sentence for 5 years for his convictions and a 10,000 shekel fine, or 18 months in jail.
The judge states that she takes into account the defendant's clean record and commends him for accepting the charges.
 

During those two hearings there were about 15 people present in the (tiny) courtroom, some of them had to stand. Among them were diplomats, activists of the Popular Struggle, lawyers (also from ACRI), family members of the defendants and us. 

Translation: Marganit W.

AM+PM

Judge: Major Sharon Rivlin-Ahai

Defense: Atty. Muhammad Mahmoud

Courtroom 2 – juvenile court

 

Interrogation of prosecution witnesses in the trial of Mahmud Halil Abed Al-Hanafsa,

ID 853809010 -  case No. 4075/10, 16 year old from Abu Dis.

The defendant’s father and his sister are present in court.

We were unable to hear the charge, but apparently it involves throwing Molotov cocktails  (indictment category: throwing objects). The two witnesses, Sufian and Mustafa are also from Abu Dis and are about the same age as the defendant. They categorically deny what the prosecutor claims they said in their interrogation, i.e., that they saw the defendant commit the offence. They each claim they do not know the defendant. Sufian, wearing prisoner’s uniform, having been brought here from jail, testifies that he was beaten by the interrogator, and that he was promised release if he signed the police report. He stood his ground vis-à-vis the prosecutor who ignored his repeated denials and bombarded him with questions. He insists that the statements ascribed to him were all dictated by the interrogator.

In cross-examination of the witness, the defense, Atty. Mahmoud, establishes that the interrogation took place at 3 AM, that the witness was not read his rights, and that he was not told he could consult a lawyer.

The second witness, Mustafa, denies knowing the defendant or having seen him carry out the violation. He says he has no friends, except his cousin Ziyad, hence he has no knowledge of the defendant. The police interrogator did not tell him why he was summoned and instructed him to sign a document, or else he would be beaten.

In cross-examination, Mustafa states that no family member was present at the interrogation, nor an interpreter, and he was not read his rights.

Two dates were set for a continuation of the trial: 14.2.11 and 21.2.11, when the interrogators will testify.

 

What ensued was an assembly line of boys and attorneys for arraignment and memorandum hearings. Dates were set for 14.2.11 and 21.2.11 and for March. Most charges involved throwing objects.

Among them was a 14 year old from Bethlehem who had been in jail for a month.

Muhammad Raed Muhammad Farukh, ID 401454558 – Case No. 1038/11

His father was in court. He was represented by Atty. Muhammad Shaheen.

Then we heard the sentencing of a young man, released on bail, accused of committing an  indecent act two years ago. The court accepted a plea bargain and sentenced the defendant to 4 months jail, coinciding with his detention, plus 5 months suspended sentence, starting today, for two years, plus 1800 shekel fine to be deducted from money he deposited as bail.

The reason for mitigation was that the defendant has no prior convictions and has not violated the law since then, leading his attorney to argue that it was not typical behavior for him. The defendant has since gotten married and fathered children.

 

After the lunch break Hadil Talal Issa Abu Turki - case No. 4953/10, was brought in.

She is 15.5 years old. She tried to stab a soldier at Qalandiya Checkpoint. She had tried doing so in the past, when she was 13. She is represented by Atty. Iyad Misk.

Hadil was arrested on 14.11.10 and in three days will complete 60 days in detention.

There was general consensus that the motive for her act was her desire to run away from a match her family planned for her, not for security reasons.

After consulting a regional welfare officer, a plea bargain was struck and a sentence of one year in jail was handed down. However, out of this year, she will spend only 60 days in jail and will be released in three days, on 27.1.11. The rest of the time will be suspended sentence for 5 years. The suspension includes wielding a knife or causing any danger to human life.

With Hadil’s father’s consent, the welfare officer will arrange Hadil’s transfer to a Home for Girls in Hebron.

 

 

 

  

Translation: Marganit W.

As on every Monday, hearings in courtroom 2 dealt mostly with minors, but there were also a few cases involving adults. The docket included 23 cases. I shall report on several of them.

The hearings started at 11:00 am, 1 hour later than scheduled.

Judge: Major Sharon Rivlin-Ahai

Prosecutor: Captain Ella Sirotinsky

 

Saleh Amad Ahmad Abu Shrar – ID 401125141– Case No. 3837/10

A 13 year old from Al-Arub Refugee Camp, arrested in September 2010 and released on bail. He came from home, accompanied by his parents.

Charge: throwing objects. The child denies the allegations.

Defense: Atty. Iyad Misk (from DCI)

Witnesses summoned to testify did not show up [this is a frequent occurrence, causing delays in the hearings].

Defense: …The defendant is a pupil. He had to miss school in order to hear the witnesses [who incriminated him]… Witness No. 5 (also a minor) said specifically: “yes, I incriminated him, but only because of pressure put on me [during the interrogation].

The prosecutor wants to summon Witness No. 4 again. In a confrontation between Witnesses 4 and 5, the former stated that fear made him say what he said.

The judge’s decision: A last chance for the prosecution to depose Witness No. 4.

…When there’s only one incriminating witness – who has already recanted his police testimony – the prosecution has to consider the public interest in pursuing the process.

An evidentiary hearing was set for 31.1.11.

 

Ta’a Saleh Hushiya – ID 401885926– Case No. 5333/10

A 13 years old boy from the village of Qatana. He was arrested on 14.12 10 and is charged with throwing rocks at security forces (the police passed by his house).

Defense: Atty. Akram Samara (who took over the case from Atty. Nasser Nubani).

The defense and the prosecution had a long discussion about a plea bargain. Eventually, the boy admitted he had thrown rocks (something he denied all along).

“Considering the defendant’s young age etc….” the judge concluded, ordering his prison sentence to coincide with his present detention (21 days), plus suspended sentence and a

1000 shekel fine.

 

Ahmad Haled Ahmad Salibi, ID 854746690– Case No. 4310/10

A 16 year old from Beit Ummar. He was arrested on 9.10.10 during a demonstration in the village and was brought to the police station in Kiryat Arba.

Charge: throwing objects.

To this evidentiary session a soldier was summoned as a witness to describe what happened during the demonstration, in which it was claimed that rocks were thrown at soldiers. The defendant denied that he had thrown rocks stating that he saw the witness for the first time at the police station. The soldier, on the other hand, insisted that he had stood next to the defendant during the demonstration and was thus able to identify him.

Undercover soldiers [dressed like Palestinians], also present at the demonstration, identified him as well. The witness spent 24 hours with the detainees at the police station.

The question of identifying the defendant was not resolved even after videos were shown in court of scenes from the demonstration. The witness had trouble pointing out the defendant from among other figures. He could not remember what the boy was wearing that day. About 30-40 people participated in the march that day: he remembered three who wore black and red shirts, but could not tell how far apart they were.

Judge: Can you recognize in this mess (the videos) the face of the defendant? Perhaps you remember him from the long hours you spent at the police station in Kiryat Arba?

She wants to subpoena the editor of the videos.

The next evidentiary hearing is set for 20.1.11.

 

Muhammad Rajab Albashiti – ID 401906912, Case No. 4704/10

Yazan Jamal Attallah – ID 401363072, Case No. 4700/10

Two 14 year olds from Abu-Dis. [see earlier reports of these cases from 11.11.10 and 29.11.10]

Defense: Atty. Muhammad Mahmud (from DCI)

A third boy, aged 15, who was part of the group, is not present in court. The two boys were supposed to testify against him. It seems that in this case all have been incriminating each other. Due to conflict of interest, one attorney cannot represent all three, so a new attorney is sought. The next hearing is set for 31.1.11.

The father of one of the boys was visibly upset at the interminable postponements of the trials and at the conduct of the court, while the boys are kept in detention for many weeks.

 

Muhammad Tarek Abd Ellatif Omar – ID 401471982, Case No. 3905/10

A 13 years old boy from Ur Altahta.

Charge: throwing objects.

Defense: Atty. Haled Alaraj.

The boy has already been in custody for four and a half months! It appears that during his arrest he was severely abused by the soldiers.

[See earlier reports of this case from 29.11.10 and 6.12.10]

The hearing took place at the end of the day after I had left. Aya, who was present, reported that a plea bargain had been reached, and as a result the child was sentenced to 8 months in prison. He burst out in tears when he heard the sentence.

We will try to find out more details.

( read Aya's report in mahsanmilim http://www.mahsanmilim.com/ChildsTrialE.htm )

Muhammad Abd Alkarim Mustafa Hatib – ID 851611053, Case No.3599/09

A resident of Bil’in, one of the founders of the Popular Committee Against the Fence and against the Occupation.

Main charge: incitement.

[See earlier reports of this case from 3.9.09, 4.1.10 and 23.2.10]

Defense: Atty. Gaby Lasky.

There was a large audience this afternoon in Courtroom 2 for the verdict regarding Hatib’s case (diplomats, reporters, activists and supporters). There was much cheering when the judge handed down her decision: Acquittal of all charges based on reasonable doubt.

(for the HEBREW protocol of the verdict click here)

The prosecution has a month to appeal the decision.

 

 

 

 

  

Translation: Marganit W.
 

Upon arrival we found the court almost deserted - there were very few family members and most of the courtrooms were closed.
We entered Courtroom 6 where remand extension hearings were held.
 

Judge: Captain Sharon Rivlin-Ahai
There were 19 names in the docket. We'll report on 4 cases of remand extension.
 

1. The detainee: a member of the Jaabri family (Ismail or Muhammad?)
Defense: Atty. Nasser Nubani
According to the charge, two suspects (only one present in court) were sitting in a car. When soldiers approached and ordered them to open the window, the driver (Muhammad) refused, and according to the soldiers' testimony, tried to run them over. The soldiers then shot at the vehicle, injuring the two suspects. The car, it later turned out, had been stolen, and a commando knife was found in it.

In the interrogation, the suspects rejected the allegations, denying that they tried to flee and run over the soldiers. The evidence consists mostly of the soldiers' testimony.

The defense argued that the car had been bought legally, though in turned out to be a stolen car.
The judge ordered the prosecution to share the evidence with the defense before the remand extension hearing and extended the detention by 6 days.

2. Detainee: Belal Bani Jaber,  ID 903907459 - Case No.5375/10
Defense: Atty. Nasser Nubani
The suspect, father of three small children of a family in great economic straits, is charged with entering Israel illegally. Normally, he works in Ramallah, but when offered 500 shekels for a job in Bet Hanina over a weekend, he accepted ("because of the great financial difficulty, I had to accept").
After a plea bargain approved by the court, he was sentenced to 35 days in jail, 2 months suspended sentence for two years, and a 800 shekels fine, or a month in jail.

3. The detainee is a man from Hebron.
Defense: Atty. Zahalka and Atty. Rashid.
The man is suspected of smuggling dangerous drugs from Jordan through Allenby Bridge. Aided by his wife, he dealt drugs on several occasions and transferred the profits to his brother in Jordan. He is accused of dealing and using drugs and of obstruction of justice.
The judge rejected the defense' arguments that the admission was obtained by coercion, that pressure was applied on the defendant's wife and sister in law, that the defendant did not know the content of the bags he was carrying, and that the dealing and use of the drug was carried out in the Palestinian Authority and hence the court has no jurisdiction.
The accused was ordered in custody until the conclusion of the proceedings.
Arraignment hearing was set for 24.1.11 before Lieut.-Col. Atzmon.

4. Defendant: Saed Mahmoud Abed Al-Hamid Bahar, ID 999681620 - Case No.5377/10
Defense: Atty. Munzer Abu Ahmad
The suspect is 22 years old, from the village of Bet-Ummar. He is charged with two memberships: one in a military Fatah-affiliated unit, involving marching in military parades while armed and masked; the second, an armed group that planned terrorist attacks. One count accuses him of participation in an attack where he and his accomplices planted an explosive charge near the door of a watchtower with the intent of injuring
soldiers.
The defense claims that the man's participation was negligible; he was merely a scout. Besides, his membership in the organizations ceased when he was arrested by the PA in February 2010, whereupon he spent 11 months in jail. His present detention in fact mounts to a second imprisonment for the same violation.
The judge ascribed to the defendant full membership in the unit and full participation in the planning and execution of a terrorist attack, which she described as sophisticated, even though no damage was done. The argument that he stopped being a member was rejected, since it was not his initiative. The argument of double indemnity, which might reduce his sentence later, was also rejected.
Decision: The suspect will remain in custody until the conclusion of the proceedings.
Arraignment hearing before Lieut.-Col. Atzmon was set for 24.1.11.
 

Courtroom 1
Justices: Lieut.-Col. Ronen Atzmon, Captain Hilit Baron, Captain Amir Dahan
 

1.Accused: Haled
Defense: Atty. Haled Al-Araj
This was a verdict hearing, following a plea bargain, after one clause of charge had been changed.
The charge is kidnapping under severe circumstances. In November 2002 the defendant asked his brother Nasser to follow a certain person who later, in January 2003, was kidnapped by Nasser and another person named Muhammad, brought under gun threat to the center of the village, and, having been forced to admit collaboration with Israel, was tied to a pole and shot.
The accused accepted the revised charges and acknowledged the admission of details he had had given twice before.

He was sentenced to 10 years in jail.
His mother sat in the audience, crying bitterly. The son left the court without looking at her.
 

2. While in the courtyard, we were approached by a well dressed gentleman from Jerusalem, who told us in fluent Hebrew that his uncle, a resident of Ramallah, had been in custody since 2006, and his sentencing was scheduled for today.

This is Mahmud Awad Tawfiq Damara, ID 410076806 - Case No.5997/06, commander of [Arafat’s] Force 17 and later Abu-Maazen's bodyguard and security officer.
We don't have the full details of the charges and the trial, but having checked with Atty. Arye Yitzhaki (from Atty. Avigdor Feldman's law firm which represented Damara) we found that the case involves orders by his superiors to open fire on the IDF during the invasion of the Mukataa during operation "Defense Shield." In this respect, he was no different than any commander of armed forces during military confrontations.
Mr. Damara is 52, of small built, with a scowling, blank face. Abu Maazen said about him that he might contribute to the peace efforts, if he were released. Saeb Arekat presented the court with a letter to this effect.
The court postponed the argumentation but handed down a verdict in Damara's case based on rules that apply in cases where there is a divergence of opinion among the judges.

Justice Dahan set the punishment at 11 years, Justice Atzmon at 15 and Justice Brown at 18.
Sentence: 15 years jail and 3 years suspended sentence for 5 years.
The defense plans to appeal the sentence. So apparently does the prosecution who deems the sentence too light. 

Translation: Marganit W.

Verdict in the trial of Abdallah Abu Rahmeh

The entrance to the court at the Ofer Campus is divided by fences into two lanes: one side is for the Palestinian families coming from Beituniya Checkpoint and the other for attorneys and Israelis. God forbid there should be contact between the two. Our entrance was crowded with many Israelis who had come to hear the verdict in the trial of Abdullah Abu Rahmeh, as well as representatives of human rights organizations and foreign consulates. The weekly demonstrations by the residents of Bil'in against the separation fence and the land theft, which have been accompanied by a very successful media campaign, have made Bil'in into a recognizable brand, and the Bil'in detainees are known all over the world as prisoners of conscience.

This explains the massive presence of reporters and photographers who apparently were given permits to shoot inside the courts. However, one self important officer insisted that no photos be taken in the yard, and shoved the photographers and those being interviewed - the activist Jonathan Pollack and Attorney Gaby Lasky - to the edge of the yard against an ugly tin fence and toilets, so that everyone who watches television will see what Israel looks like. A gentle representative from the Army Spokesman's office was present but did not interfere. Gaby Lasky and Jonathan Pollack were interviewed by reporters and various news channels. In view of the great interest this trial had generated, it was not surprising that none of the Israeli TV stations bothered to report it.

Our site contains the following reports on Abu Rahmeh's trial:

http://www.machsomwatch.org/en/ofer_tue_15_9_09_morning

http://www.machsomwatch.org/en/ofer_thu_17_12_09_morning

http://www.machsomwatch.org/en/ofer_wed_15_9_10_morning

Abdullah Abu Rahmeh was charged, among other things, with holding several kinds of combat materiel. It later transpired that he had been collecting in the village empty tear gas canisters and rubber bullets that the soldier had fired at the demonstrators; he used to display them near his house for the benefit of visitors. There were other allegations of "disobeying orders in an enclosed military area," "interfering with military action," "incitement to violence" and taking part in demonstrations.

Abu Rahmeh's wife and brother were in court, as well as 20 observers, both Israeli and foreign. He was led into court handcuffed, lifting his hands in a V gesture, a la Marwan Bargouti. He was pale, agitated and tense.

Etty Adar is the judge in this trial, but the verdict she had written was read by Justice Sharon Rivlin-Ahai. This time, I am attaching the protocol (Hebrew) of the entire verdict, sparing you my well-known opinion of the military justice and the military court procedures. It is worthwhile to read this fascinating document:

http://www.popularstruggle.org/sites/default/files/Abdallah.Abu_.Rahmah.Sentence.2010.pdf

Sentence:

-12 month in jail from the day of arrest (he has already been detained for 10 months)

-6 months suspended sentence

-5000 shekels fine

Atty. Nery Ramati surmised that the prosecution would appeal the light sentence (so Abu Rahmeh will continue to languish in jail). The defense, however, was considering appealing the harshness of the sentence.

Translation: Marganit W.

Courtroom 5

The last detainee I saw at Ofer today was brought in a little before 3 PM. He came in for remand extension before Judge Shlomo Katz (who does NOT specialize in juvenile cases). The boy, who is probably 13 years old, looks like a 7 year old. His name is Muhammad and he is from Beit Ur. He was arrested on 13.9.10 in the morning (probably before dawn) and was brought in handcuffed and in prison garb and not accompanied by a lawyer or a member of his family. The prosecutor (Tamar) requested a 5-day remand extension, an indictment by Sunday and extension of the detention until the conclusion of the proceedings.

To tell the truth, the judge looked uncomfortable (perhaps because of my presence there: I was the only one in court in civilian clothes). He dispatched the interpreter to look for an attorney. When one could not be located, he decided to extend the detention until 3 o'clock tomorrow. "I examined the file... there is a witness who testifies that the child threw rocks [It's the soldier who caught him] and I am bound by previous rulings..."

The judge allowed the child to have five phone calls to notify his family.

I was unable to reach Ayad Misk (a lawyer who specializes in minors), but I immediately called DCI (Defense of Children International) and reported the details of the case. Misk just called. He'll be in court tomorrow when the child is brought in.

This story really shook me because it dwarfs anything that we have seen before.

There were 27 cases in the docket: most were not discussed; arrangement were made without the detainees' participation.  They were brought in and out, often five of them huddling together on the defendants' bench. Some hearings were postponed at the request of the defense or because the prosecution witnesses did not show up or for reasons unknown to us.

The hearing of Hamad Ahmed Hamad Abu Maria 43992/09 was put off to the afternoon session (for earlier reports on this case see Ofer 28.6.10, 21.7.10, 4.8.10).  Hamad is charged with membership and activity in an organization affiliated with "Islamic Jihad". He was a member of a combat unit. As part of the unit's activity he threw rocks once a week at Beit Ummar. An attempt by Yizhar Beer to talk the judge into changing the detention into probation with his (Beer's) as guarantor and sponsor failed: the judge stuck to the agreement reached between the prosecution and the defense for 16 months in jail (of which 6 remain) and 6-month suspended sentence for two years, plus a 2000 shekel fine.

Courtroom 2.

(observer: Norah Orlow)

Sentencing stage of the trial of Abdallah Mahmud Muhammad Abu Rahma - ID 997446703, case No.5327/09.

Resident of Ramallah, one of the leaders of the struggle in Bil'in against the separation fence.

Judge: Major Etty Adar

Prosecutor: Captain Itai Amos. [prior to the hearing, the officer in charge of military prosecution went in and out: no doubt he must have personally handled this case]

Defense: Atty. Gaby Lasky

(Let it be noted that the best interpreter in the system was assigned to this case)

Apart from me, there were more than 20 other people in the audience, among them the defendant's wife, his brother, several diplomats from the European Union, Human Rights activists and a reporter/photographer from The Tel-Aviv paper, "Ha-Ir".

Jonathan Pollack, spokesman for the "Popular Struggle Against the Separation Fence" wrote an extensive report on this hearing. Here is the link (with his  permission):

http://www.popularstruggle.org/content/military-prosecution-demands-more-two-years-imprisonment-bilins-abdallah-abu-rahmah

The link for the protocol (Hebrew):

http://www.popularstruggle.org/sites/default/files/abdallah.sentencing.phase.15092010.pdf

We also recommend visiting the site "Popular Struggle Against the Wall":

http://www.popularstruggle.org/

morning + afternoon
 

The newly built, "improved" entrance to the military court is extremely depressing; it is evidence to the fact that the occupation aspires to a very long life.

Room Nr.3, Court of Appeals

Judge: Lieut.-Col. Netanel Benishu

Prosecution: Major Oren Lieber

Defence attorney: Mahmud Hassan

Defendant: Saed Suhir Jamil Alkhamamrah - file nr. 3426/09,

ID 852046929

Appeal of the prosecution to the Military Court of Appeals against the decision of the previous court's decision to acquit Saed.

Saed was arrested in his house in the village Hussan in the middle of the night on 17.02.09. The indictment was issued on the 24.02.09 and he was charged with "membership and activity in an unlawful association", the "Popular Front", with participating in a procession of the organisation and with writing slogans for the organisation.

After almost 9 months of hearings and examining witnesses, the court reached a decision to acquit the defendant and give him the benefit of the doubt. This happened on 5.11.09. The prosecution immediately appealed to the Military Court of Appeals against the discharge and demanded to keep Saed under arrest until the verdict of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals overruled the petition and released Saed on bail of 10.000 NIS on  11.11.09. on condition that he will not leave his village until the Court of Appeals hands down its ruling.

Today, 16.02.10, the petition of the prosecution to the Court of Appeals against the acquittal of Saed was heard. One of the arguments of the previous court in favor of the decision to acquit the defendant was seen in the failure of the investigation to confront the incriminator with the defendant. The prosecution argued that this failure could have been corrected in the course of the hearings. Another argument of the prosecution was that judge Hilit Bar-On-Biber was not completely convinced that Saed has spoken the truth, but gave him the benefit of the doubt.

The demand of the prosecution was that Saed should confess to the charges of the indictment, namely membership and activity in an unlawful association. Under these circumstances it wouldl agree that his sentence will be commuted to time served in detention, but it nevertheless insisted that Saed should be released on probation.  

The defence attorney admitted that the core of the problem lies in the credibility of the defendant. He reminded the court that Saed is supposed to donate one of his kidneys to his sister, who will have to have a kidney transplant, which will be performed in Israel. Release on probation will prevent Saed to receive an entry permit from the Civil Administration.

Justice Benishu accepted the arguments of the prosecution and suggested that the 2 sides consider the "options" and return to the courtroom after the lunchbreak.

Saed was quite desparate. Right from the beginning, he refused to confess to having been a member of the Popular Front. But if he wanted to stay out of prison, he would have to "confess" now. Release on probation was another problematic issue, because he would then be refused an entry permit to Israel. The interrogations and prison life did not break him. But the idea to return to prison was, of course, extremely threatening. He decided to accept the "offer".

That's how the military court system outplays the Palestinian prisoners and receives the desired statistical data, namely almost 100% "guilty" Palestinians. 

In the afternoon the verdict was given. The defendant was declared guilty of the charges of "membership and activity in an unlawful association" and serving this association in writing slogans and participating in processions.

The sentence :

1. the prison term is commuted to the time already served in detention,     8 months and 23 days.

2. 6 months on probation for 2 years

3. a fine of 5000 NIS