Interrogation of Witness

 

Translation: Marganit W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Translation: Marganit W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Translation: Marganit W.

Follow-up on cases reported earlier.

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

Judge: Major Meir Vigiser

Prosecutor: Major Nathanel Kola

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati

[See previous report regarding Sausan’s case]

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Judge: Major Meir Vigiser

Prosecutor: Lieutenant Avishai Kaplan

Defense: Nery Ramati

(See previous report regarding his case)

Amir’s father was present in court.

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

50 years old  

(See previous report regarding his case)

Judge: Sergeant-major Ronen Atzmon

Prosecutor: Atty. Major Orit Pargi Bechar

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati

The defendant’s mother was present during the proceeding.

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

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

-Who pushed whom?

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

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

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

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

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

Translation: Marganit W.

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

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

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

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

Judge: Sgt.-Major Ronen Atzmon

Prosecutor: Captain Odelia Kardoner

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati

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

His mother was present in the court.

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

 

Courtroom 5

Judge: Major Meir Vigiser

Prosecutor: Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati

Evidentiary Hearing.

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

Resident of Beit Ummar, a 22-year old student

In custody since 12.10.11.

His mother and another relative are present in court.

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

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

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

The prosecution summoned two witnesses.

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

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

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

-I don’t remember what I said.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. Before the investigation?

A. Before or after…Never during the investigation.

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

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

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

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

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

A. I don’t agree. A liar is a liar.

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

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

Q. Are you a juvenile interrogator?

A. No…

Q. Did you follow the Juvenile Law?

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

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

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

Q. How long did this questioning last?

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

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

 

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

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

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

To be continued next week.

 

 

  

Translation: Marganit W.

 Morning and Afternoon

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

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

See a film documenting the arrest

See article by Amira Hass on the same subject

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

Judge: Major Zvi Heilbron

Prosecutor: Major Nathanela Kola

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati and Atty. Akram Samara

Defendants:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

   

 Translation: 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.

Continuation of the trial of Bassem Tamimi from Nabi Salah village – Case No. 2058/11

(see previous reports: 26.10.11  /  2.11.11)

 Judge: Major Etty Adar

Prosecutor: Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Atty. Labib Habib

Evidentiary hearing

Apart from the defendant’s family, there is a large delegation of Anarchists Against the Fence and various diplomats (from France, Belgium and England). Netanyahu Junior is absent from court today. It falls to Yonatan Pollak to do the spokesperson’s and translator’s jobs.

A Captain from Givati Brigade (?) testifies. He was part of the unit that was sent to control the protest at Nabi Salah, and now shares his experiences with the court.

He describes how the protest started following Friday prayers at the mosque, when the youngsters started hurling rocks, using what the army calls “David’s slings” (slingshots).

The use of the term David’s sling is interesting, since it indicates that the army knows full well who is David and who is Goliath in this story.

The witness was positioned about 50-100 meters from the protesters who numbered about 50. They threw rocks and gas grenades, which the witness claims were IDF unexploded grenades. Several dozen people were standing on the rooftops. A rock hit him in the shin and broke his leg. He was taken to hospital.

The prosecutor presents medical documents. We did not see them, so unfortunately we cannot discuss them. They became quite interesting later. The prosecution rested its case and the defense started the cross-examination.

The soldier reiterated that his leg was broken by the rock, saying dramatically, “the leg simply broke in two,” which I found hard to comprehend. It later transpired that 3 months after the incident the witness returned to the same army base and resumed his activity. He needed several operations, he said, and is still not back to full activity. The defense produced the release papers from the hospital where the soldier describes how he was injured: he twisted his leg and fell while running. Perhaps he fell and then twisted his leg. At any rate, there is no dramatic breaking of the leg into two as a result of being hit by a rock.

-This is what you told the doctors at the hospital?

- No, I did not.

-So they invented this?

-I don’t know.

The defense abandoned this line of interrogation. Apparently, what we had heard so far was sufficient. The witness said nothing about Tamimi’s presence at the demonstration where he, the soldier, was so seriously injured. The attorney told me later, “I deal only with what is relevant to my client’s case. The soldier did not incriminate him.

In this respect, we were just wasting our time.

What about the other witnesses, whose testimony the court has been waiting to hear for more than a month? They did not show up. Investigator Jalal Awida sent word that he was not feeling well today. The court administration contacted Islam Tamimi’s father yesterday and he told them that Islam is taking an exam today, and he himself is working and cannot leave without prior notice.

Then the court discussed administrative matters, dates, future hearings etc.

Next hearing: Wednesday 23.11.11. You can book seats ahead.

Other hearings when witnesses will be summoned: 28.11.11/ 1.12.11.

 

Norah adds:

During an intermission in the hearing I remained in the hall and had a chance to talk to Bassem Tamimi (in detention at Ofer for 8 months now). I asked him about the conditions of his incarceration. There are 10 people in the cell. There is no heating (only blankets). Since March 2011he was allowed only one visit from his family.

Moreover, since the release of Gilad Shalit there has been no easing of the conditions in the detention centers/ prisons. (Conditions were deliberately made harsher BEFORE Shalit’s release). The conditions remained the same.

 

  

 

Translation: Marganit W.

Judge: Lieut.-Col. Ronen Atzmon

Prosecutor: Major Orit Pragi-Bechar

Defense: Atty. Ahlam Hadad

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

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

His mother and cousin were present in court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Translation: Marganit W.

 

Judge: Major Etty Adar

Prosecutor: Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Atty. Labib Habib

Defendant: Bassem Tamimi from Nabi Saleh – Case No. 2058/11

Representing the Army Spokesman’s office was Netanyahu Junior, attended by two guards (one in civilian garb)

[See earlier report of Bassem Tamimi’s trial]

 Bassem Tamimi’s trial goes on and on at Ofer Military Court. He is accused of organizing demonstrations, instructing villagers how to conduct non-violent protests, blocking the army’s route with garbage cans and other minor violations. These are considered security threats to one of the most aggressive and better-equipped countries in the world.

In this session two police investigators testified: they had interrogated Tamimi following his arrest. They seem to be experienced and savvy, covered with a thick layer of Teflon. They do not remember anything – absolutely nothing. At best they testify “to the best of my recollection…”

The Military Prosecutor went first. He asked: How good is your Arabic. Tell us about the atmosphere during the interrogation. Do you remember anything special from that interrogation?

The witness (police interrogator) replied to all questions with, “I don’t remember any such thing”, whereupon the prosecutor was satisfied and rested his case.

In cross-examination the defense sought to prove that the army had marked Tamimi as an organizer of protests and thus had prepared the case against him even before his arrest.

Bassem Tamimi was interrogated on 24.3.11 but the file shows that evidence against him had been sought three month earlier, on 12.1.11.

This is what the testimony sounded like (with necessary abridgement):

1. -Who headed this interrogation?
2. -I don’t remember, at that period…
3. -Explain how this investigation started.
4. -You should address this question to my commander.
5. -I see that you interrogated Roy Vanespi. – Do you remember this?
6. -I don’t recognize this name.

            (The defense tries to jog the forgetful witness’s memory) He is an army photographer.

1. -I am not familiar with the name.
2. -Do you remember when the order was given to start the investigation in this case?
3. -No.

Thus, most of the 116 questions were answered by “I don’t remember, Maybe, Don’t recall, I no longer remember, I don’t know, I suppose, To the best of my knowledge, I have no recollection of such an event, I don’t think so, etc.”

 The second interrogator was also interesting. The prosecutor asked him a routine question: Tell the court how proficient you are in Arabic. Answer: “I have been a policeman for 25 years, and I conduct investigations in Arabic…” He mentioned his formal education. This witness, too, did not remember anything unusual about the interrogation.

Let me cite again the answers provided by this witness: “Don’t remember, I suppose, If I am not mistaken, Can’t recall, Maybe, I don’t know, I think so, I don’t think so, Don’t remember, Not my responsibility, If memory serves….”

These investigators are very cautious, they are well trained, and they do not remember.

Another point: the defendant claims that during some of the demonstrations he is accused of having organized he was absent from the village, having attended a Red Cross training course. The defense asked the testifying interrogator: Did you ask (Tamimi) when the course started?

Answer: We asked him. The defendant said he did not remember. To the best of my knowledge, if there is a record or if attendance was taken, then we could not check his alibi…. He did not even provide us with a phone number.”

He did not provide a phone number! The IDF could not obtain the phone number?!

Question: As an investigator, shouldn’t you check that out?

Answer: Considering that the course took place in the [Occupied] Territories, I cannot check it out. [He cannot check if there was a Red Cross training course on that date!] I think I did the maximum possible.

Q: The Red Cross is not accessible?

A: The Red Cross in the Territories, I don’t know. There was no specific person I could call.

Really? Someone specific?? One wonders, how they obtained the phone number of the Atomic installations in Iran or of the Human Rights Organizations in Larnaca. But to obtain the number of the Red Cross Offices in the Territories??

The other witnesses did not show up. Islam Tamimi did not come; the court administration was unable to establish contact with him. For those who remember how the child Islam first came to this court, this epitomizes the farce that goes under the name of military justice.

The other two witnesses were also, somehow, unavailable.

They will be summoned to the next hearing (16.11.11).

 

 

  

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.