Administrative Detention

Translation: Marganit W.

Russian  Compound

Judge: Shmuel Fleischmann

Police Investigator: Bashir Amar

Defense: Leah Tzemel, Maamoun Hashim, Iyad Misk

 

There are 3 cases in the docket. All the detainees are barred from meeting with an attorney.

We were given to understand that the three cases were based on mutual incriminations.

 

Faras Nasser Subati Bargouti – ID No. 90401061, represented by Atty. Maamoun Hashim.

Raed Samir Habib Halabi, ID No. 039528419, represented by Atty. Iyad Misak

Nasser Adin Subati Isa Abu Hadir – ID No. 080010424, represented by Atty. Leah Tzemel.

 

We attended part of the discussion between Abu Hadir’s attorney and the police investigator.

The investigator requested remand extension for 15 days to complete the investigation.

Atty. Leah Tzemel explained the status and the position of the detainee: he was arrested on 15.4.11 and was kept in detention for about a month. On 13.5.11 his status was changed to administrative detention. Right before his release from administrative detention he was taken to the Russian Compound for interrogation under pretext of a security violation – membership in the Popular Front [for the Liberation of Palestine] and activity against the security of the state.

The defense wanted to know if the interrogator is familiar with the case and knows why the defendant is in detention. She received the standard answer: “It is all included in the secret file”. Unsatisfied with this reply Atty. Tzemel pressed the interrogator to say “Yes or No or I cannot answer”.

Leah Tzemel: You agree that not everything in the secret file is secret. It is no secret why he was interrogated. I represented him. I intend to show that the investigator was not truthful… I wish to expose the clause….

The investigator continued to refer to the “secret file”. The defense appealed to the judge: the investigator is under cross-examination and is obliged to answer, unless he can prove that his answer will damage the investigation. The judge, however, thought otherwise: he sided with the investigator, adding to the protocol phrases that, according to the defense, were not said by the investigator.

Atty. Tzemel tried to show that the police investigator is not familiar with the defendant’s previous investigation. For example, he does not know that the suspect was tested by polygraph and was found to be telling the truth when he said that he did not participate in military activity with others.

Another aspect that came up in the cross-examination was the interrogators’ authority: what authority does a police interrogator from Judea-Samaria have over a Jerusalem resident who lives in Jerusalem?

The answer is: there is an arrest order, which provides legal authorization for an interrogation of a suspect when the violations are believed to have been committed in Jerusalem.

At one point the judge asked the investigator to elaborate, but to no avail.

Atty. Tzemel stated that the GSS has no basis for the charges, so the case is trumped up.

She asked the investigator if it is possible that the case is made up. A shocked investigator immediately responded: The GSS is a principled and conscientious organization: it does not engage in such behavior.

In summation, the defense reiterated its doubt about AUTHORITY, which is a basic question in this case. She claimed that a military court has no authority to detain and interrogate her client based on rules that apply to residents of the Territories. Even the GSS legal counsel cannot claim otherwise.

Another fault she found in the case: Since the GSS realizes that remand extension is hard to obtain, it based its charges on incriminations tied to other violations, and it is not clear if any of the incriminators was set on…

Leah Tzemel moved to declare that the court has no authority in this case. If this is denied, she requests a limited number of hours or days for the investigation.

Judge’s decision: Having heard the suspect and the defense, and having examined the evidence in the file, he accepts the investigator’s request of 15 days remand extension.

 

 

 

 

 

  

Translation: Marganit W.

 

Hagit’s report

Courtroom 5

Judge: Major Shmuel Fleischman

Prosecutor: ?

 

22 arraignment cases are in the docket.

The charges – by order of prevalence: throwing objects, membership and activity in an unlawful organization, exit from “the region” without permit, and others.

 

Fadel Tamimi – Case No. 2697/11

(See earlier report from 28.4.11).

Fadel was released on bail on Monday, 16.5.11.

Attorney Lymor Goldstein has not yet received the investigation material from the prosecution; this includes a videocassette, which forms the basis of the evidence. The defense requests a postponement.

The next hearing is set for 27.7.11 at 9:30 AM.

 

Abbas Abdel Karim Diab Saada – Case No. 2707/11

Defense attorney Munther Abu Ahmed presents a plea bargain reached with the prosecution: two charges will be expunged and the defendant will admit to two out of the four charges in the indictment. The remaining charges are: breaking into a car in French Hill (Jerusalem) and an attempt to steal it; entry into Givat-Zeev (Jerusalem) without a permit.

The defendant  expresses remorse, which prompts the judge to say: “I don’t believe you. This is what you said on the last 4 or 5 occasions.”  It turns out that in 2002 the defendant was sentenced to 8 months in jail, and in 2003 he repeated the offenses and was sentenced by the Magistrate Court in Jerusalem to 6 months. He went to jail again, when a suspended sentence was put into effect.

The judge scoffs at the claim that the illegal entry into Israel was presented as a search for work, when in fact it was carried out in order to commit a property violation. The judge turns to us (the observers) saying: Write it down: “for reasons of livelihood…”

Sentence: 91 days in jail plus a stiff suspended sentence: 24 months for 3 years (for break-in and car theft). I was unable to hear if the suspended sentence includes the illegal entry into Israel [H.S.]

 

Iyad Raed Hatib – Case No. 2877/11. A boy of barely 15, accused of throwing rocks. He has been detained for 12 days and shows signs of having been beaten.

(see earlier report from 8.5.11)

Since the defendant is a minor, the trial before Justice Fleischman is conducted behind closed doors. The judge decides to release him to house arrest under the supervision of his mother and another person. There are also heavy sums to be posted as bail.

Implementation of the decision is postponed because the prosecution plans to appeal.

 

Naji Majed Ribhi Arar – Case No. 2546/11

(see earlier reports from 10.4.11 and 28.4.11)

At the defense’s request arraignment is set for 22.6.11 in Justice Fleischman’s court.

 

Three additional detainees represented by Atty. Lymor Goldstein (see earlier report from 28.4.11) will be arraigned before Justice Fleischman:

 

Fathi Hamdalla Arar – Case No. 2753/11

Muhammad Kassem Arar – Case No. 2754/11

Alaa Abdullah Said Suleiman – Case No. 2698/11

 

Courtroom 3 – Court of Appeal

Judge: Nissim Sarousi

Prosecutor: Dvir Peleg

 

Atty. Muhammad Aabed appealed the administrative detention of a 27-year old detainee, married and father of a baby, who was arrested a month ago.

The defense argued: the detainee is haunted by his past: he has been detained 4 times before. The last time he was released form administrative detention was two years ago. In each case the charge was membership and activity in an illegal organization. In his youth he belonged to an organization, and since then he has been unable to shake off the label. Today, the defense claims, the area is governed by the PA and people it considers undesirable are reported to the Israeli authorities.

After his last release, the man got married and opened a store. Suddenly, he was again arrested. The GSS forces people who have rehabilitated themselves to return to their past lives.

The prosecutor moves to reschedule the appeal and maintain the detention order. He gives no reasons.

The detainee tells the judge: I used to belong to the Islamic Jihad, but I left the organization, just like Ariel Sharon who left the Likud…

________________________

 

Ofra’s report

Courtroom 2

Judge: Major Amir Dahan

Prosecutor: Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Atty. Ilya Theorody

 

Tarek Shaheen – Case No. 2605/11, suspected of membership and activity in an illegal organization, 19 years old, from Daheisha refugee camp in Bethlehem.

Tarek was arrested on 7.4.11at 3 AM at his home. His father told us that his son is a high school graduate, enrolled at the university and that this is his first arrest.

20 soldiers took part in the arrest: four entered the house, awoke the entire family (in English) and ordered them not to say a word and not to resist, informing them they had come to arrest Tarek. The family watched in silence as their son was arrested and taken out into the dark. Tarek was held for a few days at the police station, then transferred to Ofer [Military detention camp].  

10 other youngsters from Daheisha were arrested that night and are still in custody.

According to the father, the youngsters paraded with flags in the camp and were later incriminated. The father claims that the Israeli army routinely raids Daheisha and Bethlehem several times a week.

Security in Area A is under Palestinian jurisdiction.  The occupation, however, seems to breach all borders, written agreements and international conventions. This is evident from soldiers’ testimonies in “Breaking the Silence”.

The hearing was rescheduled for 23.5.11 due to changes in defense attorneys.

 

Ali Kamal Hoarin – Case No. 1240/11, a young man from Dahariya who has been in detention for 4 months on charges of “preparing/throwing/laying of a bomb” (actually a kind of flare, according to the prosecutor’s explanation).

The detainee’s father is in court, ready to testify, but in the end the defense cancels his appearance in order to save time. I attended only part of the hearing, in which Ali was interrogated first by the defense, then by the prosecution.

According to his testimony, he had a [entrance to Israel] permit and was working in Mishor Adumin at a solar heating plant. He used to sleep there, going home once a month for a couple of days or for a weekend. He worked from 7 AM to 4 PM, rested for 2 hours, then worked from 6 PM to midnight, as well as on Saturday nights. From his answers to the prosecutor it was evident that Ali denies the allegation (which refer to August and October 2010), claiming that most of the time he was absent from the village, and when he came home he spent his time with his family and rested. The prosecutor tried to shake this alibi.

I am not sure how the hearing ended, but it is clear to me that the young man was exploited under disgraceful conditions in a settlers’ plant.

Moreover, I checked in the Yellow Pages and found “Barsheshet” factory in Mishor Adumim (P. 121), which advertises itself as a patriotic “blue and white” establishment.

Recent data by the Palestinian Statistics Bureau show a high level of unemployment among young people, as well as a large number of Palestinians working in Israel and in the settlements. These data shed light on the problem (and also on the case of Abas Saada, who is accused of a break-in).

I reported this to a journalist as well as to “B’tselem”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 Translation: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound

 

Judge: Shmuel Fleishman

Police investigator: Bashir Amar

Defence Attorney: Fahmi Shkirat

 

There were two cases in the docket.

 

Firas Akal Muztafa Dar. I.D. 949794234

 

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

 

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

 

Meanwhile the judge started to dictate his decision:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(see previous reportdated 21.2.11 re this case)

 

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

 

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

  

Translation: Marganit W.

My First Impressions - Tamar Fleischman:

Two rows of chairs await the families near the door. We, the Jews, are seated in the front, while the prisoners' families sit in the back. On the side is the defendants' cage. Two young men are inside: they are handcuffed and shackled, tied to each other with metal cuffs. The one closer to me stares at the far corner of the room, his cheeks are tearstained, and his wet dark eyes glow in silence. I follow his eyes and see his mother: her face, too, is streaked with tears,  her blazing eyes carry on a silent, wordless dialog with her son.

We report on three hearings that were postponed and did not take place, causing the Palestinian detainees to languish longer in jail. These are the new "Days of Awe" - from Holocaust Day to Memorial Day - days of ceremonies. At Ofer there's a ceremony for soldiers, so the hearings start an hour late. A hearing of a high school student - pale and trembling - was postponed by a month because the prosecutor had to attend a ceremony in Tel Aviv.

It turns out that a "special commando" was sent to Bil'in in the night between April 12 and 13 to summon Halil Yasin, an incriminating witness in the case of Abdullah Abu Rahma, the "Palestinian Gandhi" a member of the Popular Committee Against the Separation Fence.

We also witness another case - one of many- of political administrative detention, this time of a woman.

Judge: Major Etty Adar

Prosecutor: Captain Odelia Amos

Defense: Atty. Gaby Lasky

Defendant: Abdullah Abu Rahma, ID. 997446703 - Case No. 5327/09

The prosecution was unable to present any of the witnesses on its list, so the hearing began with a discussion of the reasons for their absence and ended with setting dates for hearings in the coming weeks. Although the judge made efforts to coalesce the hearings, Abdullah who has been detained for 4 months ‘until the conclusion of the process' requested the floor: "... who will guarantee that after so much time in jail... I will be compensated? I did not harm anyone. If I'm released, let the trial last five years, I am not going anywhere..." It was clear that the witnesses were trying to avoid testifying. The prosecutor said: "this is the second time that the witness finds an excuse not to appear." When the detention depends on underage incriminators - like Halil Yasin  (and it is easy to imagine by what means the incriminations were extracted), there's no wonder that they avoid testifying in court, try to flee and require "special commandos" to haul them in. The prosecutor said as much: "As for this particular witness, I request a subpoena, and when it is issued, a force should be sent to bring the witness into custody..."

Defense: Atty. Naser Anani

Defendant: Muntazar Ibrahim Issa Abrigit - Case No. 5429/09

Charge: throwing rocks.

The defendant was a minor when he was arrested.

As mentioned earlier, there was no substantive hearing, just a postponement for a month, because the prosecutor had to attend a ceremony somewhere. Muntazar sat pale and trembling. His face lit up when his parents entered. Here is the father's story:

Muntazar, from Beit Umar, was first arrested during a demonstration when he was 17, in March 2009. His friend was shot and killed there. His parents did not know where he was. After 4 months he was released. Although he missed school for so long, the Palestinian Ministry of Education helped him and he finished the school year. On 21.12.09 20 soldiers broke into the house and arrested Muntazar. He wasn't 18 yet. He had been incriminated by friends, charged with throwing rocks at the military tower that stands at the entrance to the village (Area B). Muntazar stands to lose a whole school year and miss the Matriculation Exams. As for his medical condition, we shall connect his family with the relevant organizations.

Defense: Ahmad Safiya

Defendant: Muntaha Al-Tawil - Case No. 1433/10. Administrative detainee at Sharon Prison

Charge: membership and holding a position

In this case, too, the hearing was postponed because the defense is not familiar with the case.

We gathered the following details from the attorney and from Shosh, from the Committee for (female) Prisoners: Muntaha was arrested on 8.2.10. Two weeks later, on 21.2.10, when the court was about to release her, the GSS issued an order for administrative detention, which is still in force. Muntaha is the wife of El-Bira mayor, has several children and is a student.

Translation: Marganit W.

Courtroom 4
10 AM - Continuation of the trial of Adeeb Abu Rahme - ID 954902771,
Case No. 3336/09
Judge: Captain Arye Dorny
Prosecutor: Adi Noy
Defense: Gaby Lasky, Neri Ramati

Adeeb Abu Rahma is a taxi driver, resident of Bil'in, married with 9 children. He has been detained for over four months, since Friday 10.7.09.
All motions to release him on bail have been denied because of objections by the prosecution.
(Additional information about his detention can be found in MachsomWatch website in Ofer reports from 23.8.09, 15.8.09, 17.9.09 and 17.11.09).

In today's evidentiary hearing the unreliability of the witnesses was made quite clear. Just like in the previous hearing (15.11.09), the defense exposed many inconsistencies in the testimonies. The prosecution continues to
summon witnesses. When they fail to show up, the hearing is postponed, again and again. The defendant continues to sit in detention. Perhaps this is the name of the game: not to prove guilt, but to remove from Bil'in the activists who oppose the fence and participate regularly in the demonstrations against its construction.

Today it is the turn of Witness No. 4: Sgt.-Maj. Nasser Suwad, who has been serving as a scout in the military for 12 years. He testifies that in the last 4-5 years he has witnessed dozens of demonstrations against the separation fence in Bil'in. In the demonstration when Abu Rahme was arrested, he was in charge of the PA system, which was mounted on a military jeep. It was he who made the announcements in Arabic warning the
residents not to enter the area designated as "closed military area" and not to approach the fence and the gate. He testifies that he identifies the defendant as the one who approached the gate and opened it. He recognizes him from many earlier demonstrations and because he is the only one in the dock. After Adeeb's arrest, the commander ordered the witness to drive him (with the help of two other soldiers) to the police station at
Sha'ar Binyamin., where they took his deposition about the event and the arrest. In his testimony he described faithfully what he had seen with his own eyes.

Attorney Lasky cross-examines the witness. His answers regarding his police statement are problematic: the witness says he signed the statement, but the statement in the file does not bear his signature. In it the witness identifies the defendant by his ID number, but this detail could not have been known to him, since the defendant did not carry his ID card. The witness has no explanation for this discrepancy. "I know his face. How could I know what his ID number is?"
There is inconsistency between the witness's testimony and what is seen in the security tape of the incident, now in the hands of the prosecution. In the tape (viewed by the prosecution and the defense in the courtroom, but with the judge and witness absent) one can see many people going through the gate and moving toward the fence, but the defendant is NOT among them.
In his testimony he said that there were no other people at the scene, and that only the witness and another man (a Jewish leftwing activist) opened the gate.

The hearing resumed after lunch. Two witnesses who were supposed to testify did not show up. The defense claims that no real effort was made by the court to bring in those witnesses. In other words, the trial drags
on and Adeeb continues to sit in jail.

The next hearing - hopefully with the witnesses - is set for 27.12.09
(Attempt will be made to hold it earlier either on 10.12.09 or 17.12.10).

2:30 PM
Courtroom No. 3 

Appeal against the continued detention of Muhammed Othman.
(See earlier reports on this case: Salem 19.10.19 and Ofer 22.10.09)

Judge: Lieut.-Col. Nathanel Benishu
Prosecution: Michael Avitan
Defense: Mahmud Hassan (from Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association) 

Muhammed Othman from the village of Jayyous was arrested on 22.9.09 at Allenby Bridge on his way home from a lecture tour and conferences in Norway. It was part of his campaign against the separation wall.
For most of his detention he was barred from seeing an attorney. At first he was held at Kishon detention facility (Jalame), then he was transferred to Ohaley Kedar in Beer Sheba where he shared a cell with police plants.
Later, he was returned to Kishon where he claims the interrogators threatened him, that if he did not admit the charges, he would be put under administrative detention. He rejected the allegations and was remanded in
custody for 8 more days. This is being appealed today. It is the second time his attorney has submitted an appeal for his release. The Appellate Court, which had rejected the previous petition, predicated the remand on new evidence to be found during the prolonged investigation, since the purpose of detention is the search for new evidence.

For sixty days the investigators could not gather enough evidence against Muhammad Othman to warrant an indictment. Justice Benishu, Deputy President of the Appellate Court, heard both sides and read the
confidential file. Apparently, he did not deem Othman a "danger to state security" and decided to release him on very high bail and with various restrictions until the indictment is submitted and a trial is held to prove his guilt or innocence.
But a military judge, high-ranking as he may be, is not independent of the security system of which he is part. His authority is secondary to that of the regional military commander whose decisions are endorsed by the
Military Court for Administrative Affairs. A day after the decision to release Othman, on 23.22.07, the military commander issued an on order to put Muhammad Othman under administrative detention. Two days later, on 25.11.09, a "judicial review" conducted behind closed doors, as is always the rule in administrative detention cases, sent Muhammad to Keziyot Prison for three months, and there's no knowing what will happen to him next.

Just a reminder: the international humanitarian law permits administrative detentions only in extreme cases of severe danger to state security. To be sure, Muhammad Othman is not the only Palestinian incarcerated at Keziyot under administrative detention for refusing to admit the allegations against him and as a deterrence to activists protesting the separation wall and violations of human rights.

There were about ten other people in the audience of the courtroom: representatives of various European and Canadian diplomatic delegations and representatives of human rights organizations. They came to support the peace activist.
The defense attorney explained the circumstances of the appeal and answered their questions.

Translation: Marganit W.

Third Remand Extension of Muhammad Othman Azat Mustafa, ID 901095380

Judge: Lieut. -Colonel Eliyahu Nimni
Investigator: Major Lutuf Mar'i
Defense: Atty. Mahmud Hassan

Background
Due to the general disorder reigning at the Shomron [Salem] Military Court these days, many who should have been in court were late, and the judge, after having shown up, kept coming and going. The detainee, however, was already there, the defense was present and the detainee's father was sitting on the bench reserved for families of the suspects. This turned out to be a boon, allowing attorney and client to talk at length, undisturbed, (comparatively speaking). Father and son communicated with hand gestures and the spectators exchanged views.
The father - bearded, gaunt, and ashen, with big eyes - sat in his corner crying. Atty. Hassan walked over and gave him a big hug. Two representatives of Pax Christi, whom I had met at the gate, told me that they had visited the family at Jayyous the day before. In the meantime the attorney caught up with his client about what had transpired since their last encounter. He later used this information during the hearing.
When he tried to give his client a glass of water, three guards rushed to stop him. Apparently, this is forbidden.

Starting Point
The defense's position is that Muhammad Othman's detention is unwarranted, thus the entire investigation is not aimed at obtaining information but at punishing him. This is what he said in court. The hearing opened with his objection to the police's request for 23-day remand extension for further investigation. This was the first time I heard a defense attorney exposing the legal system's failure to defend a client.

The Hearing - The Case for the Defense
The hearing finally began at 11 AM and it lasted about an hour, which is inordinately long for such discussions that usually end within ten minutes.
Attorney Hassan interrogated the investigator about the prosecution of the case, offering his own interpretation, based, no doubt, on what he heard from his client.
For instance, he claimed that on October 15, his client was tied to a chair and was under investigation
for 11 hours. In response, the investigator said that that day yielded a five-page testimony (included in the confidential material handed to the judge). The attorney countered that either parts of the testimony were not recorded because they did not correspond to what the interrogator's wanted to hear, or the suspect was tied to a chair for 11 hours as a form of punishment, not investigation. To corroborate his claim the attorney said that his client had fallen asleep in his chair and water was poured on him to awaken him.
The investigator claimed he knew nothing about this.
At any rate, the attorney insisted, this procedure is prohibited. Similarly, the court had struck down another prohibited method of intimidation, threatening to hurt the suspect's sister. Furthermore, all this time, Othman had been kept in solitary confinement.
The attorney reiterated his contention that the investigation had yielded no proof against his client and it was merely going around in circles. He wanted to know, why no police statement had been obtained from his client, even though he was arrested on Sept. 22.
The last hearing gave the investigator 12 additional days to complete the investigation.
The court had stated then that there was no progress, no specific allegations, no outside corroboration or additional suspects. The investigators had only his client's words and they kept asking him the same questions.
Moreover, the attorney said, his client cooperated with the interrogators, answering all their questions. He is 33 years old, with no prior record, and whatever he did, even if it is not to the GSS liking, was still legal.
As for the present charge - that he allegedly met a Hizbullah agent in Jordan, thus implying that he gave aid and comfort to that organization - the accused admitted that he had met someone in Jordan who gave him posters against the separation fence.
In sum, the attorney stated that there was no warrant to keep his client in custody. He has no criminal record, his place of residence is known, and he has a steady job and is a student. He should be released on bail since he poses no risk. His acts were perfectly legal.

The Case for the Investigation
The investigator was not very knowledgeable about the case. Whenever asked a question, he consulted his file at length. His answers were replete with "I don't know," " it's confidential," "I wasn't there," ask The GSS,"
"danger to security in the region," etc. He stated that further custody is mandated because release would vitiate the investigation and lead to security risk and flight from justice. This he recited without hesitation.
He also insisted that the suspect was deliberately lying.
The defense attorney, in his summation, wondered how, with such flimsy command of the case and its findings, the investigator could be so sure of himself.

The judge's statement
The judge pronounced the detainee's name as if hearing it for the first time. Apparently, the reverberation of this case around the world has not penetrated the walls of Salem Military Court.
After perusing the confidential file for a long time, the judge moved to extend the remand by 11 days -
until 29.10.09 - because there had been some breakthrough in the investigation, and there was danger to security in the region.
Well, who can blame the judge? From the point of view of the occupation machine, there is nothing more dangerous than a Palestinian who opposes violence and protests the separation fence by peaceful means. This is particularly true of the fence in Jayyous, where the Supreme Court had ruled that the fence is disproportionate and that its route needs to be changed.
The state has been ignoring the Supreme Court decision for years.

The defense appealed the remand extension. The appeal will be heard on Thursday, 22.10.09 at 9:30 at Ofer.

Muhammad Othman was released on 13.1.10 after having been detained in administrative detention from 23.11.09.  A press release published by the organisation Addameer (Prisoners' Support and Human Rights) contains Muhammad Othman's background:

Mohammad Othman, a youth coordinator with the Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign (Stop the Wall), was released after 113 days in Israeli detention without charge or trial. Mohammad, 34, was arrested by Israeli soldiers on 22 September 2009 at the Allenby Border Crossing as he returned home to the West Bank from an advocacy tour in Norway. On 22 November, after 61 days of physically and psychologically exhausting interrogation, a military court judge ordered the end to Mohammad's interrogation. The next day, however, Mohammad was placed under administrative detention. Mohammad's administrative detention was renewed for a one month period on 22 December, but was later shortened by ten days by a military judge in the Court of Administrative Detainees. Although administrative detention is legally permissible only in emergency situations, threatening the "security of the state," and not as substitute for prosecution where there is no evidence to obtain a conviction, the military judge reduced Mohammad's detention order on the grounds that there had been no serious developments in the investigation into his case. Addameer and Stop the Wall contend that Mohammad's administrative detention was clearly arbitrary and based on impermissible grounds, in severe derogation from Israel's obligations under law.

Translation: Marganit W.

Russian Compound  
10-12 AM

Judge: Boaz Oren
Police Investigator: Avi Akiva

Today the magic number was 9: all the hearings we attended, where there
was prior agreement between the sides about remand extension, ended with a 9-day extension. Only in the first hearing - described further on - there was no agreement and the number was different.

Defendant: Iman Darchana
Defense: Attorney Fadi Qawassme, represented by Firas Sabah.

Mr. Darchana, member of the Palestinian Legislative Council since 2006, lives in Ramallah. He was arrested in early March 2009.
Later on, an administrative order was issued against him for 6 months, until 25.9.09.
The prosecution failed to make the case against him, but the appeal against the administrative detention was rejected. Mr. Drachna was incarcerated at Ofer Prison, then 8 days ago he was transferred to the
Russian Compound for GSS interrogation in connection with suspicions on a prior violation, not the one for which he was detained.
In the hearing today, the prosecution requested a 9 day remand extension to complete an investigation that might yield an indictment. During the session it transpired that Mr. Darchana is accused of the familiar
"membership and activity in an unlawful organization" - i.e., Hamas. The defendant denied all the allegations. He is a member of a perfectly legal organization: the Palestinian Legislative Council.

There was no interpreter present, so Attorney Firas translated.

The next 5 hearings were short because there were prior agreements on a 9-day extension. Here are the names of the detainees and the charges against them:

Ali Bahudan - membership and activity in a hostile organization, planning and carrying out terrorist acts against Israeli targets; activity endangering security in the region.

Shadi - Contact with a foreign agent, activity in a hostile organization.

Hamze Shlash - Membership and activity in a hostile organization - Hamas, throwing rocks and planning to throw Molotov cocktails at military targets.

Salah Hussein - Membership and activity in a hostile organization, preparing, storing and carrying combat materiel, preparing charges in order to disrupt security in the region.

Now came the turn of a "barred" detainee. Roni presented the judge with the High Court decision concerning open hearings.

Judge: The closed door discussions are aimed at preventing leaks from the hearings.

Investigator: Insists on prohibition to publish the hearings. Requests 'in camera' hearing.

Judge: I will decide case by case.

Investigator: If Your Honor orders an open discussion, I will request an order to prohibit publication.

The judge examined the "Confidential Information" file and ordered an 'in camera' hearing. He allowed, however, the publication of the fact of the detention itself. We left the courtroom.
We waited in the hall for ten minutes, with the detainee, who was facing the wall, hands and feet
cuffed, dark glasses on his eyes and his forehead stuck to the wall.

The last hearing was interesting: it was conducted 'in camera' though the detainee was not "barred". For some reason, the investigator and the defense, Attorney Ahmad Sfiya, had reached an agreement on 'in camera', as we found out from Attorney Safiya, after the hearing.

Translation: Marganit W.

Report from the High Court of Justice:

HCJ rejects another appeal by Dr. Ghassan Haled

Justices: A.A. Levi, A. Gronis, H. Meltzer

Representing the appellant: Attorney Muhammad Abed

Representing the respondent: Attorney Illill Amir

Interpreter: none

Case No. 3908/09

Justice Meltzer: He is a law professor, doesn't he know what it means to concede the facts!? He admitted he was a member of Hamas...

This case encapsulates the banality of the oppression and the humiliation that typify all the legal procedures that thousands of Palestinians have to undergo every year in the Israeli courts, procedures whose aim is to bestow a semblance of law, order and justice on criminal acts perpetrated on a people under occupation.

The esteemed Justice makes use of an appellant's admission, obtained under duress as part of a plea bargain [1], which resulted in his release, in order to prolong the appellant's administrative detention without trial [2]. Needless to say, the appellant has already paid his dues, both in jail time, probation and monetary fine. This is adding insult to injury.

On 20.5.09 Dr Ghassan Haled appealed to the HCJ protesting his third administrative detention, all in all a year and a half. It was a routine procedure with an anticipated ending.

The defense presented its case first. Attorney Abed tried to focus on the fact that the military judge had released his client until the conclusion of the proceedings on 19.3.08, as proof that his client was not dangerous, but one of the Justices interrupted him to remind him of Dr Haled's admission as part of the plea bargain. Attorney Abed responded that admission was the only course left to his client. It is important to note that the appellant agreed to admit in court that he had transferred funds to the Islamic Student Organization in order to save a student a long jail sentence. That student had incriminated him and was the main witness in Dr Haled's trial. When the student recanted his allegation, he was pronounced a hostile witness. Had it not been for the plea bargain, the student would have been sentenced to 6 years in prison. Dr Haled wanted to prevent this from happening. In addition, the plea bargain would have led to Dr Haled's release, had it not been for the administrative detention.

In his summation, Attorney Abed pointed to the appellant's Israeli friends present in the court. These people have been following the case from the initial arrest, and their presence and support disprove the GSS's claim that Dr Haled is a security risk.

The representative of the state spoke next. The torrent of her words prompted one judge to stop her because the typist could not keep up with her. He asked her jokingly if the huge sunglasses resting on her head were the reason, and she said they only helped keep her hair from falling onto her eyes. But the fashionable sunglasses were of no help to Attorney Illill when she looked in vain among her documents for the date when the present administrative detention would end. A friend of the family, Jamila, could not contain herself and remarked, "What are two months in the life of an Arab? What does the prosecutor care? They didn't even bother to get him an interpreter!"

Indeed, there was no interpreter. Attorney Abed had to do the translation. He positioned himself next to Dr. Haled, who was surrounded by guards. The judge asked them to let the attorney-interpreter sit next to his client's ear. "Be a little creative, friends!" said the judge. Thus the defense attorney translated the state's arguments for Dr. Haled, in particular the repeated allegation that he posed a security danger.

At the defense's request, Dr. Haled was allowed to address the court. He explained that he has a family, he teaches law, he is a man of peace and his family has many Israeli friends.

At this point the defense and the audience were asked to leave, so the case could continue behind closed doors. It then became apparent that no less than eight GSS men and women had been present in the court, sitting in the back. They now conferred with the Justices and with the prosecution, presenting the classified material that ostensibly proved that Dr. Ghassan Haled poses "danger to the region."

The verdict (3) rejecting the appeal was given the same day. It was all perfectly predictable. In light of the verdict, the license given to Dr. Haled to address the bench can only be seen as a cynical gesture that mocks the appellant. The Justices state that the verdict was based on "his admission" during the trial, i.e., admission in a legal procedure that ended in a plea bargain and in which he was already penalized and that will continue to haunt him for as long as the GSS sees fit. In addition, the Justices found "substantiation in the classified intelligence material presented to us, which convinced us that there is ground for suspecting the appellant of posing danger to security in the region. Therefore, the appeal is denied..."

Once more, the question arises: is there a point in Palestinians appealing to the High Court of Justice which abuses them twice: not only do they lose in the majority of cases, but they end up more guilty and humiliated than when they went in.

The answer is apparent: in June 1967, Head of Military Prosecution

Meir Shamgar (later Supreme Court Chief Justice) ostensibly opened the door for Palestinians to enter the halls of Israeli justice. But this door has been systematically slammed in their faces for the last 42 years, except that everything is documented so that years from now this legal system will find  itself on the wrong side of the law.

(1) The trial and the plea-bargain: http://www.machsomwatch.org/en/salem_sun_30_11_08_morning

    "Guilty" pp. 34-39: http://www.machsomwatch.org/files/Guilty.pdf 

(2) The administrative detention - started on 3.4.08 for 6 months; extended for the second time for 6 more months. On 31.3.09 extended for the third time for 4 months, until 30.7.09

Additional material:

"Guilty" (see above), Machsomwatch report:

http://www.machsomwatch.org/en/high_court_justice_thu_22_5_08_morning   

(3) Verdict: http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files/09/080/039/o03/09039080.o03.htm

Translation: Marganit W.

Courtroom 6

Judge: Major Hilit Bar-On
Prosecutor: Captain Adi Noi
Defense: Tawhid Sha'aban
Defendant: Fadi Amru - Case No. 4540/08 - ID. 907389530,

an engineer from the village of Dura near Hebron.
Charge: membership and activity in an unauthorized association

Administrative detention until 6.4.09 to coincide with the legal procedure.
Sentence: One year probation for 5 years, plus 500 shekels fine.

The defendant's mother and his wife were sitting quietly behind us, smiling at the son/husband without talking; toward the end they cried silently.

Amru is accused of "membership in an unauthorized association in 2004-06.
The association in question is "Kutla Islamiya" the Hamas students' organization.

The two sides have reached a plea bargain consisting of a "revised indictment" and an agreed upon penalty. On his part, the defendant rescinded his denial of the allegations.

The prosecution declared "evidentiary difficulties in the case"; time has elapsed from the commitment of the felony and the arrest. There were personal circumstances besides: the defendant has a sick baby.

[It is important to note that "pleas bargain" is a common procedure in trials of Palestinians in the occupied territories. It benefits the military courts system whose aim is to convict as many people as possible in the least amount of time. Plea bargains save time and bear the semblance of justice.
The Palestinians, on their part, relinquish the full legal procedure which
might exonerate them, admitting to a lesser felony that carries a lesser
penalty.]

Judge: You accept the charges?
[Interpreter translates into Arabic]
Defendant: standing, his face and body expressing discomfort and hesitation, which prevent him from responding for long seconds. His attorney urges him to speak, and finally he utters one word: Halas! (enough), which epitomizes the miserable condition of a man bereft of liberty and self respect facing his weeping mother and wife.

When it was time for sentencing, we were sure that Fadi Amru would be released,
perhaps with a penalty or an alternatively 2 weeks in jail. The attorney was about to hand the mother a receipt for the fine to be paid, when the (hitherto unmentioned) "administrative detention" was uttered. The attorney took back the receipt from the mother, protesting to the judge that there's no sense paying a fine if the defendant is not released. The judge accused the prosecutor of neglecting to bring up the administrative detention, stressing that these are two unrelated parallel procedures.

The prosecutor countered that the total separation of the two procedures assures that the defendant would not be released by mistake.

The attorney told us later that Fadi Amru had already served 9 months in jail for the same offense. He was arrested again about 5 month ago, incriminated by 2 witnesses who testified that he continued to be a member of the same organization. (Amru denied the allegation, but willy-nilly agreed to the plea bargain.)
We further learned that he had graduated with honors from an Engineering school in London and had worked with European firms in the West Bank. This case is one of many; people at the height of their careers, with families, who contribute to society, are cruelly and fatally neutralized. When thousands of the best and brightest of Palestinian society are thus eliminated, one is reminded of the term "Politicide" coined by the late
Prof. Baruch Kimmerling and used in his book by the same title.

"Politicice" :

http://www.powells.com/biblio?PID=29467&cgi=product&isbn=1859845177

Courtroom 3

We were about to leave, when we noticed a couple in the waiting courtyard who looked different (secular) from usual relatives waiting there; we decided to speak to them. By the time they finished their story, they were summoned to the courtroom. So we joined them.

Background: the couple were the wife and brother of prisoner Iyad Kamel
from Bethlehem.

He has been in jail for four and a half years.
Over a year ago, right after the sentencing, he appealed the decision, but only now has the appeal come before the court.

He was arrested a few days before the birth of his son, who is almost two years old and knows his father only as a photograph. "The child thinks that "baba" (dad) means a picture. Once," his wife tells us in English, "I brought the child to visit his dad in jail. It was terrible. They would not let me see my husband with the baby. It is forbidden, so the guard took the child, grabbing him like an object and brought him to my husband. The child was frightened and cried bitterly (since he did not recognize the man as "baba".)

A panel of three judges: Lieutenant-Colonel Nethanel Benishu and 2 judges on reserve duty whose names escape us.
2 prosecutors: Shlomy Schneider and a female prosecutor who did the pleading

(whose name escapes us).
Defense: Attorney Ossama Odeh
Prisoner (appellant): Iyad Kamel - Case No.4122/08 - ID No.9901129098

Iyad Kamel was convicted of complicity in trading in combat materiel and in a terrorist attack during the second Intifada in 2001-02. Only the eighth count of indictment - aiding and abetting (i.e., providing food, cigarettes and rides) wanted men - occurred shortly before the arrest.

Judge to Defense: What do you want?
Defense: I want him released today!
Judge: Then convince me.

The defense enumerates the mitigating circumstances:
-  Time lapse: most of the charges refer to offenses committed 7-8 years    prior to the       time of arrest.
- The last charge (No. 8), committed shortly before the arrest, is a technical offense, proving that the appellant had long ceased all hostile activity.
- He was convicted based on his own admission. There were no witnesses.
- He is a family man now. It is inconceivable that he would revert to terrorist activity.
- In the shooting charge, there are no details about his part in the incident, when it took place, from what distance.
- Other perpetrators who were convicted, were sentenced to only a few
months in prison.

The judges request that the prosecutor cite precedents on which they could base their decision. She complies.
In fact, in most sessions we attend precedential decisions are central to the judge's decisions.
The judges' decision will be handed to the defense by the end of the day.

When Iyad is ushered out, his wife weeps silently, wiping her tears.
Later in the evening, we find out that, as expected, the appeal was rejected.

Iyad Kamel will spend additional two years in jail, and his son will get to know his father only when he is four.

              

Translation: Marganit W.

Judge: Major Yariv Navon

Defense: Attorney Muhammad Abed

Defendant: Ghassan Sharif Muhammad Haled

We have been following Haled's trial from the beginning, when he was brought in for remand extension at the Military Court in Petah Tiqwa, then transferred to Ofer and Salem. [Cf. posted reports on our site for 23.1.08, 13.2.08, 20.2.08, 12.3.08, 22.5.08,25.8.08]

Ghassan Haled is entangled in two parallel legal procedures:

a trial in which he was indicted and then released on bail after two months in jail, and an administrative detention which he has been serving at Ketziot Prison for the last eight months.

Today, the "released" detainee Ghassan Haled was brought here from Ketziot, and later in the day he would be remanded there as an administrative prisoner. We were unable to figure out how these unrelated procedures can be conducted simultaneously. The judge who had just "released" the defendant did not address the administrative detention Haled is serving. Only at the end of the trial did we hear the judge ask the defense, in passing, if Haled was still under administrative detention.

Three GSS investigators were slated to testify for the prosecution, but right before the hearing we were told by Attorney Abed of some dramatic developments: the main witness (the student Harazi) who in an earlier hearing denied the prosecution's allegation that he had told interrogators, namely, that Haled had given him 10,000 dollars for students' aid [Cf. report in Machsomwatch website of 25.8.08] recanted his denial. According to the attorney, the witness, who is in detention, changed his testimony in order to have his sentence (of 6 years in jail for various charges] commuted to 13 months.

In view of this development, said the attorney, Haled decided to accept the charges, based on Harazi's incriminating testimony, and agreed to a plea bargain with the prosecution.

Haled's parents (from the village of Jayyus) were present in court, as were four friends of his, Israeli peace activists.

The judge accepted the agreement reached between the prosecution and the defense and handed down his verdict:

The defendant is convicted, as per his own admission, on the charges included in the revised indictment, i.e., membership and activity in an unlawful organization, in violation of regulations 84 and 85 (1)(a) and 85 (1)(c) of the (Emergency) Defense Regulations of 1945.

The defense points out that the defendant has no connection to Hamas; "the man he helped is known to him as a member of Kutla Islamiya which is the students' branch of Hamas..."

Before handing down his verdict, the judge let the defendant speak.

Ghassan Haled said that he hoped for justice, for the rule of law and for peace between the nations of the region, adding that he hoped to return to his family, to his work and to the quest for peace, which he pursues together with his friends who are sitting in the courtroom. The judge read his sentence:

-Jail time to coincide with the period of detention from 16.1.08 to 19.3.08.

  It is stressed that in this case the defendant is released, and this verdict does not include any other component of incarceration.

-4000 shekels fine to be deducted from the 30,000 the defendant posted as bail (or four months in jail).

-10 months probation for 4 years starting today, on condition that he does not violate the injunction against "membership and activity, holding position or providing services to an unlawful organization."