Minors

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next hearing is set for 18.1.12.

Translation: Marganit W.

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: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound

Judge: Col. Dahan

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

Defence Attorney: Maamoun Hashim 

There were four cases in the docket: 

Balal Abed Ouda Alla Bel – ID 946905924

Ali Muhammad Ibrahim Alian – ID 859829426

Muhammad Gazi Salame – ID 852275486

Kamel Salim Suleiman Suarka – ID 904086634

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

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

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

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

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

Balal Abed Ouda Alla Bel – ID 946905924

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

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

Muhammad Gazi Salame – ID 852275486

Police Investigator: Yizchak Weizmann

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

The minor was not interested in our presence.

Kamel Salim Suleiman Suarka – ID 904086634

Police Investigator: Yitzhak Weizmann. 

Charge: murder of a policeman in 2009. 

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

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

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

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

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

Translation: Marganit W.

General comment: Once again, there were no dockets. Ramadan, which began yesterday, was the reason that so few families attended and only few
courtrooms were operating.
In Courtroom 5 remand extensions were heard. The judge was Barak Jordan (the one who demanded an apology when one of our colleagues described his hearings as a "show" and threatened to sue us for 100,000 shekels if we did not apologize).

Prosecutor: Jenny Lubovsky (She refused to give Nery her last name: we finally got it from the protocol).
Defense: Nery Ramati

Defendant: Muhammad Abu Ayash, age 15.5.
The boy, a resident of Bet-Ummar, is accused of throwing a rock - with his brother - from the balcony of his home at soldiers carrying out operations in the village. Two soldiers testified: Gershon Reznikov and Lior Devosh.
They testified that they recognized the boy's face and clothes: brown shirt with yellow stripes. The boys deny the allegation. The prosecutor requested remand extension to complete the investigation, citing the soldiers' testimonies, which are identical.
Defense: The soldiers admit that there was no eye contact from the moment they saw the boys on the balcony until the rock hit. This weakens the credibility of the evidence, and requires the court to be extra careful.
Prosecutor: Indeed, there was a gap of several minutes, but eventually the soldiers reached the house. The suspects were identified from a distance of 20-30 meters. A few minutes later, reinforcement arrived and the soldiers broke into the house and arrested the boys.
Defense: The real question here is: the 15-year old defendant threw a rock that did not hurt anyone nor caused any damage. Couldn't the court consider an alternative to detention, which involves no risk? The alleged violation is low on the scale of endangerment: he did not cause damage, and he does not have prior convictions. Amendment 14 of the Juvenile Code states that detention until the conclusion of the proceedings should be the last resort and used only in extreme cases.
The attorney cited precedents and suggested posting bail, supervision by a member of the family, house arrest etc. The boys, the attorney pointed out, did not seek the soldiers to pelt them with rocks. The soldiers entered the village.

He added: If it were a Jewish boy who threw rocks in that area (i.e., the occupied territories), no court would send him to detention until the conclusion of the investigation.
Prosecutor: The defendant is 15.5, the typical age for such violations. He threw rocks from the balcony at a passing patrol. These soldiers, although they wear helmets, are more exposed than soldiers in a jeep, thus there was serious danger to their lives.
As for the difference between detention of Israelis and Palestinians, she offered this explanation: Of course, there's a difference between a Palestinians minor and an Israeli minor. The force (!) that comes to arrest a Palestinian minor is exposed to rocks and to threats to their lives. She added that there is no difference between Jew and Palestinians when it comes to the response to rock throwing.

Atty. Ramati retorted, "Sure, see the case of Havat Ma'on."
Judge's decision: Rock throwing should not be taken lightly. However, these days, when the case involves a minor, the tendency is to consider alternatives to detention. The minor will be released under these conditions:

5000 shekel bail until the trial, third party guarantee for the same amount, and injunction not to leave his home, except in order to report to the court.
The judge acceded to the prosecution and ordered a 48- hour delay in carrying out the decision.
Hearing set for 4.8.11 at 11:15.
The attorney told us that if the prosecution appealed the ruling, he, too, would appeal the amount of the bail.

Remand extension in the case of Yusuf Mussa Yusuf  Hawasha
Defense: Atty. Mahmoud Hassan
Judge: Barak Jordan
Prosecutor: Jenny Lubovsky

The defendant, a 45-year old resident of Bir-Zeit, is a member of a civil court (marriage, divorce, custody of children etc). He was arrested at home 18 days ago at 3 AM. He is accused of membership and activity in an unlawful association, in this case the Popular Front [for the liberation of Palestine].
As soon as the session opened, Justice Jordan declared the hearing 'in camera".
Attorney Hassan asked, "Did the prosecution demand an 'in camera' hearing?" The prosecutor consulted her papers and said something indistinguishable. The hearing continued in open court.
Prosecutor (reading from the charge sheet): Walid Habas, an incriminator, testified that he knows the defendant by the name of Abu-Yaffa. At the end of 2009 Walid Habas attended a meeting of the Popular Front, where Abu Yaffa was present. They met every other week to discuss the political situation, write graffiti and open new cells of the Popular Front. The incriminator claimed that the defendant was in charge of marches.
Even though the hearing was open, the defense asked the judge why he had wanted to hold it behind closed door. Did the court have prior information about the case? The judge responded, but I could not hear what he said.
Defense: Walid Habas testifies that he knows the defendant as Abu Yaffa, but gives no other details. Under such circumstance, how did the investigator find the defendant, who denies any prior knowledge of his incriminator? The investigators should have arranged a confrontation between the two in order to substantiate the charge. Had they done so, we would not be having this hearing. Did the investigator really want the truth (considering the contradiction between the claims)? The defendant is charged with participating in a political meeting where political issues were analyzed. There is no ban on meetings. The defense requests an alternative to detention.
Judge's decision: The defendant is accused of membership and activity in an unlawful association, The Popular Front. Since the end of 2002 until his arrest he was in charge of organizing marches for the movement. The prosecution is basing its charge on a statement by Witness No. 2 who states that at the end of 2009 he met the accused for the first time at a rally. The court does not question the credibility of the evidence, considering only if there is risk involved, based on the alleged evidence.
Remand extension until 10.8.11. Justice Shmuel Fleischman will hear the sides.

The trial of Ibrahim Afif Ahmad Bargouti
Judge: Barak Jordan
Prosecutor: Jenny Lubovsky
Defense: Ibrahim Nubani
Charge: throwing rocks
When soldiers came to his house to hand him a subpoena, the defendant,
together with other boys, threw rocks at them. The prosecution requests remand until the conclusion of the investigation. The defense requests an alternative to detention.
The prosecutor cites testimony by Witness No. 2, Sari Bargouti, who on
24.7.11 testified that when the army came to the house with a subpoena,
the defendant, together with others, threw rocks at the soldiers. Another
prosecution witness testified on 18.6.11 that many people threw rocks,
among them the defendant. The attorney points out that those testimonies
mention no dates, hence he objects to the arraignment.
The prosecutor counters that the statement "when the subpoena was presented" amounts to mentioning a date.
The judge points out that the charges refer to more than one instance of
rock throwing.
Prosecutor: Referring to the testimony of Witness No. 2, there's a span of two months in which rocks were thrown.
The judge says that in deciding a remand extension he has to be convinced that evidence exists proving the defendant's guilt, yet the court is not obliged to examine the evidence in depth. Based on the evidence in the file, and considering the risk involved in rock throwing, an alternative to detention is not warranted. He orders the defendant remanded until the conclusion of the proceeding. Next hearing is set for 10.8.11. 

Translation: Marganit W.)
 

General Notes:
1. Lately, check-ups at the entrance have become stricter: last week security guides examined my writing pad and my hairpins (which I always remove because of the magnetometer). This time they were taken away and deposited together with our IDs.
2. Getting out of the compound was equally difficult: we had to wait, together with several families, for about half an hour, calling and ringing the bell, to get the attention of Nadav (in charge of security check).
3. As described in Hava's report from last week, there were difficulties with access to dockets. In two courtrooms we had to request them, and in another the interpreter referred us to Rafa (Head of Interpreters) who supposedly had those dockets, but the latter denied it.
4. We came to observe the trial of  the Al-Zi'ul brothers (See last week's report). Their names were not on the list, and we did not see their parents in court. Thus, the difficulty in obtaining the dockets dictates which trials we observe.

Judge: Zvi Heilbronn

Defendant: Samer Mahana Abed Alkadar Abu Maria - Case No. 2612/11
Charge: Leaving the area without a permit. He is not in detention.
We did not get the attorney's name. It was an arraignment hearing. The defendant denies the allegation that he used false papers, claiming that those were official documents. Witnesses will be summoned and documents will be presented.

The defendant was accompanied by his father, a blind old man in tattered clothes and old shoes with no socks, who drew the judge's attention to himself.
Evidentiary hearing is set for 2.8.11.

Defendant: Muatasem Mazen Abd Elkadar Rakban - Case No. 4526/10
Charge: Manufacturing and throwing an incendiary object.
Defense: Atty. Tarek Bargout
(When we entered the court, the trial was in session)
The defendant stated that he had accepted the charges at the police station because he wanted to settle scores with Nidal, the operative who controlled him.

The prosecutor asked why he also confessed to acts where Nidal was not implicated, but the defendant did not understand the question, despite repeated attempts to simplify it.

As to why in his interrogation he also admitted throwing Molotov Cocktails at events where he was not present, the defendant replied that he had been intimidated and
threatened with transfer to the Russian Compound.

The defense skipped the cross-examination; he was not ready for summation at this stage.
An oral summation hearing (with both sides agreeing) was set for 26.7.11
at 9 AM.

The prosecutors is to present the evidence within a week.

Defendant: Halil Muhammad Halil Awauda - Case No. 2559/11.
Charged with membership and activity in a hostile organization.
Defense: Atty. Abu-Mazar (?)
The defendant understands and denies the allegations.
Evidentiary hearing is set for 13.9.11, as the defendant requested to have the hearing after the month of Ramadan [August].

Defendants:

Rashad Muhammad Marshad Hamad - Case No. 2034/11
Muhammad Izat Izat - Case No. 2035/11
Muhammad Ahmad Mahmud Hamad - Case No. 2036/11
Charge: attempted killing.
Defense: Atty. Akram Samara
The trial of the three defendants was postponed to 6.9.11 because the attorney could not find the file.

Defendant: Hassan Abed Almatlab Abed Aljaffer Bakri - Case No. 5357/11
Charge: Using and dealing drugs.
Defense: Atty. Avi Baram
The defendant was caught in Azariya in possession of a "dangerous drug", hashish (53 grams) and 17 Ecstasy pills.

The defendant understands the charge and admits guilt. He has prior convictions.
The sides reached a plea bargain involving 6-month jail time because of an earlier suspended sentence, plus 7 more months for this violation. The agreement calls for overlapping jail sentences of 10 months and 4000 shekel fine or 4 months in jail.

The court was to consider a suspended sentence.
Grounds for the agreement: the defendant's prior record.

The attorney maintains that the defendant has a serious drug problem, but the PA has no
rehab facility. He has 4 children. He is asking the court to divide the suspended sentence into two violations: dealing drugs and using drugs.

The court approved the agreement and accepted the defense' plea. The defendant
received a 3 month suspended sentence for 3 years for using drugs and 8 months suspension for 3 years for the crime of dealing drugs.
The court ordered the destruction of the drugs and the knife found during the arrest, but returned 1780 shekels confiscated from the defendant at that time. The court also recommended that the GSS enroll the defendant in a rehab program.

According to the arrangement, the defendant has a month and 8 days to serve time.

Judge: Sharon Rivlin-Ahai
 

Defendant: Ossama Mahmud Abed Alaziz Kamel - Case No. 3184/11
Charge: manufacturing and throwing an incendiary object.
Defense: atty. Akram Samara.
The defendant is 16 years old.
The defendant admits to throwing rocks at the separation fence on five occasions. However he denies throwing rocks at moving vehicles.

As for his signed statement at the police, he claims that he confessed and
incriminated others because he was beaten. After being interrogated for two hours by Captain Daud (who beat him and slapped his face), the captain asked if he had a lawyer. He said no. He was alone in a room with Captain Daud. He was then transferred to another interrogator who also ignored the attorney issue. That second interrogator did not beat him up, but he told him that everything he had told Daud was already written in the statement, so he repeated what he had said earlier.

As to why he incriminated those specific people, he said those were the names that popped into his head.
In reply to his attorney's question, he said he had been taken from home at 5 AM.

The judge commented (with a rather cynical smile, to my mind) that apparently they waited until morning.
Evidentiary hearing is set for 2.8.11.

Translation: Marganit W.

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

Courtroom 5
Judge: Lieut. Avshalom Meushar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Translation: Marganit W.

Courtroom 2
Judge: Major Sharon Rivlin-Ahai
Prosecutor: Lieutenant (?) Oren Lieber, chief prosecutor at Ofer, aided by
Lieutenant Michael Avitan
Defense: Atty. Gaby Lasky, Atty. Nery Ramati

A continuation of the trial of Islam Dar Ayoub - Case No. 1367/11, from Nabi Salah

(See earlier reports of this case from 30.1.11, 10.3.11 and 21.3.11)
Islam was arrested and interrogated on 23.1.11. The main charge against him: throwing rocks.

This mini-trial seeks to determine the admissibility of the defendant's confessions.
In addition to the defendant, who came from home with his father, a group of supporters, both Israeli and foreigners, are present in the court.
The defense has summoned Dr Assya Karmon as expert witness. She has 38 years experience as psychologist and psychiatrist, as director of a Mental Health Clinic for Children and Youth, as well as a consultant in many committees both in Israel and abroad. She has published many articles.

Her professional opinion is presented in writing as part of the main investigation.

In cross-examination, the witness stresses that the written opinion reflects the general principle of the effect of detention and interrogation on testimony by children and youths. She had not met with the defendant prior to writing the report, had not read the police
officers' testimony, nor had she watched the video recording of the interrogation. After writing her testimony and before coming to court, she
read the testimonies and watched part of the recorded interrogation, which takes 5 hours.
In reply to the judge's question, the witness states that the videocassette indicates that there was a tense atmosphere during the interrogation.  She cites examples of an interrogator approaching Islam and touching him ominously and the dismissive reaction of the interrogators who throw a tissue at Islam when he bursts out crying. Dr. Karmon pointed out that an Israeli kid, interrogated by a specialist Juvenile Interrogator would, under similar circumstances, receive sympathy and comfort. 

She further stated that the negative conditions that prevailed in Islam's interrogation (late night, interrogators not skilled in questioning minors, the absence of a relative) are all conducive to the child's collapse. Just one of these conditions would suffice to verwhelm
him, especially since he was wrenched from his normal family surroundings and hurled into a hostile, threatening environment.
The prosecutors wants to know how much weight the expert’s opinion has in the judge's decision. The judge says she will take it into consideration.
The court will soon determine the admissibility of the defendant's confession.
The defense plans to summon an expert witness in international law, as well as the defendant's sister.
The defense will continue on 5.9.11.