Incriminators

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.

Milli’s Report:

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

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

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

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

The sides were given two weeks to respond.

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

Case No. 2058/11from Nabi Salah.

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

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

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

Prosecutor: Atty. Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Atty. Labib Habib

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hagit’s Report

Courtroom 5

Judge: Major Shlomo Katz

Prosecutor ??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Translation: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound

Judge: Lt.-Col. Shalom Dahan

Defence Attorneys: Firas Sabah, Fahmi Shkirat, Ahmed Saffiya

Police Investigators: Afif Mahmoud, Ronny Vadror

We waited half an hour for the amiable policewoman who always checks us to arrive.

While we waited, many uniformed people walked past us. One of the police officers stopped and asked who we were. “Are you from the organization for the defence of the murderers?"  This is the image of an Arab for a uniformed individual on duty – a murderer.

At 10:30 we went through the body-check and were accompanied into the courtroom. We entered while Justice Dahan was writing his summary in the minutes. Three investigators were seated in the court. One asked us right away: “Did you visit Gilad Shalit?” I answered, apparently not in a low voice. I asked an investigator (who was new to me) for a list of the cases to be heard. He had hidden the list under the files in front of him; when I tried to answer, the judge called me to order for disturbing. If I had a problem he said, I should turn to him…

When he had finished reading his summing-up, I spoke to the investigator again. Justice Dahan explained to him that it is in order to give us the list so we can copy it. The investigator said he would photocopy it and give it to us. I had my doubts about this, but there was no choice.

We received the photocopied list, from which the ID numbers of several suspects had been deleted with correcting fluid. We could not identify which one was the subject of the discussions – and could do so only in the final session that we observed.

Six cases were in the docket. Four of them had the same surname – Aliyan.

We observed the proceedings regarding three detainees. All three were represented by Attorneys Saffiya and Shkirat.

 Two of the detainees are aged 17.5 and the third is 21. The three appeared in court without a guard, and without handcuffs. When we first arrived in the court, we saw them talking with their attorneys in the corridors near the courtroom.

The three are charged with participating in demonstrations, throwing stones and bottles (not Molotov cocktails, as the judge made clear with the investigator’s help, but a bottle like, “Let’s say, Coca Cola”) and with activities against regional security.

The two aged 17.5 are from Bethlehem and Anata; they received, following consent of both sides, an 8-day extension. Their files will betransferred to the prosecution “unless other reasons come to light justifying a change in the agreement”.

As for the third detainee – Handa Muammed Aliyan, 21 – agreement was not reached. The defence attorney put questions to the investigator, among them: “Was the detainee arrested on the basis of incriminations?” The reply: “Yes, he was arrested three weeks after the incident, as the result of incrimination or intelligence material”.

Three statements were taken from the detainee by three different investigators, one of them – whom the detainee identified as Mussa (probably Moshe) took his statement using violence.

The judge noted the incident in the minutes, to the obvious annoyance of the investigator, who was present during the proceedings.

The detainee is suspected of a “very grave act which miraculously did not harm anyone” and also of throwing stones and of activity against regional security.

His remand was extended by additional 4 days.

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

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

Justice Shmuel Fleischman’s court

In most cases the prosecution requested a deferment.

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

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

Accused of leaving the area without a permit.

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

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

The hearing is set for next week, 17.8.11

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

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

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

The judge asked the defendant a few questions:

Q: Why did you enter Israel?

A: I want to work.

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

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

Q: Does your mother work?

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

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

A: I learned my lesson.

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

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

Remand extension.

Prosecutor: Jenny Lubovsky

Defense: Mahmud Hassan (from A-Damir organization)

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

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

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

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

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

The trial will continue on 14.9.11

Translation: Marganit W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound

Judge: Shmuel Fleischmann

Police Investigator:  Fares Jabar

Advocate Anan Odeh represented the detainees in the two hearings which took place today.           

There are 2 cases in the docket, one of a person barred from meeting an attorney.

Farras Nasser Sabti Barghouti, I.D. 904010264

Last week the detainee was prevented from meeting his attorney. From the judge’s summary we understood that the detainee asked to complain about the way he was interrogated. The detainee submitted a written complaint (by means of his lawyer). The judge referred to that letter, in which he claimed that he was not given time to rest, and was hit during the interrogation.

He was barred from meeting an attorney until Thursday. His attorney,Maamoun Hashim, met him once the bar was lifted.

Following the questions of Atty Odeh, Judge Fleishman informed him that an answer to the complaint had arrived. He read and signed it.

The police requests another 19 days of detention to continue the investigation.

The detainee is suspected of the following felonies: activity against regional security, membership in a hostile organisation and combat materiel (unclear whether for trading or possession).

As always, there was an exchange of questions and answers between the defence attorney and the police investigator. Today the answers were slightly more detailed, but mostly longer, and the summary was as always: 'it's in the confidential report'.

For example:

Question: Activity against regional security, clarify what activity.

 Answer: Activity endangering regional security. I cannot provide the details at the moment, the material is in the confidential report.

Question: What does he admit to?

Answer: Membership and activity.

Question: Does he admit?

Answer: Partially, there are other directions in the investigation that we need to examine in order to reach the truth.

Question: What do you intend to do next?

Answer: Several more interrogation actions, to examine the suspicions that we have against him. There are other suspects connected to the same offences. Contradictions have arisen in the suspects’ versions. We have to examine what is the correct version.

Judge Fleishman read to the defence attorney the timetable of the conducted interrogations after the detainee submitted his complaint letter. He said that the timetable in fact seems reasonable to him. In the middle of one day of interrogation, there was even a visit by members of the Red Cross.

The defence attorney summed up and argued that 45 days of interrogation is certainly a substantial period for an investigation. Nevertheless, the police still want 19 more days. During part of the interrogation period, the detainee had been barred from meeting an attorney. He requested to reduce the number of investigation days, and if possible, to transfer the case to the prosecution.

The judge’s summation:

The matter of the suspect’s detention has been discussed twice (at the detainee’s request) in the military Court of Appeal. His arguments were rejected. The investigation is very complex, and each time that the suspect is interrogated, the investigators discover new suspicions. Moreover (the judge cites a paragraph in the confidential report), there are grounds for the suspicion that the detainee is concealing things.

He also notes that he received a detailed explanation regarding the suspect’s complaints about being hit.

Nevertheless: this is a matter of a suspect detained since 18.4.11 His continued detention and interrogation is necessary.

He extends detention by a further 11 days, for the purposes of the investigation.

Sam Odeh Rantissi, ID 978392371

The suspect is prevented from meeting his attorney from today, for another 4 days.

The police investigator requested 15 more days. The suspicions: membership [in an illegal organisation] and activity against regional security. The defence attorney requested details. The investigator replied: I can't give you any.

The suspect was arrested on 22.5.11. For part of the time he has not been allowed to meet an attorney. He admits to the suspicions 'in a very partial way'.

He was incriminated by people, some of whom are under investigation.

The suspicions "are very serious, a question of general and also specific activity that I cannot specify' - from investigator’s reply to questions by the defence attorney’s representative.

We were removed from the court [seen that the detainee was barred] and the suspect was then brought in. 

Translation: Marganit W.

Morning and afternoon sessions

We came to hear the mini-trial concerning the admissibility of the interrogation of the boy Islam Dar Ayoub Tamimi, as well as an appeal of the court’s decision to remand Bassam Tamimi in custody until the conclusion of the proceedings. Both defendants are residents of the village of Nabi Saleh.

In between, we also peeked into other courtrooms:

In Courtroom 7 there were more than 60 traffic cases in the docket; they were processed at lightening speed, filling the state’s coffers.

In Courtroom 2, as is the custom on Mondays, mostly minors were tried in front of Justice Major Sharon Rivlin-Ahai. Out of 29 cases in the docket, 18 concerned “rock throwing” by minors.

Toward noon, the mini-trial began regarding the admissibility of the interrogation of Islam Saleh Dar Ayoub [Tamimi], ID 402197834 -Case No. 1361/11. The defendant is 14 years old.

Judge: Major Sharon Rivlin-Ahai

Prosecutor: Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Atty. Gaby Lasky

The reason for the delay this morning was that Islam and his parents were detained at the compound gate and were refused entry. When Atty. Lasky intervened, the father and son were let in, but not the mother. The guard who detained the family told the judge that indeed he had refused to let the mother in and sent her home. The reason: she “caused a disturbance at the gate”. A furious Atty. Lasky said she would lodge a complaint against the imperious soldier.

Islam came in limping: he had broken his leg the day before at home where he is under house arrest.

Prosecution Witness No. 1 was Atty. Lymor Goldstein, who declared that since he was about to testify, he was resigning from the case.

The interrogation focused on Goldstein’s attempts to locate the accused once he had found out about his arrest… and then on his attempt to meet with his client BEFORE his interrogation, an attempt that failed, despite the numerous phone calls he placed to the police station informing the police that he was on his way: Inspector Jalal Awwida [who had already testified in this case – see report from 21.3.11] prevented him from attending the interrogation, invoking an injunction against a meeting between detainee and attorney.

The witness testified that when he saw his client after the interrogation he found him distraught and in very poor condition. He was crying and told Atty. Goldstein that he had been beaten by the soldiers, and kept in a jeep following his arrest.

In cross-examination, the prosecutor queried Goldstein’s psychological expertise. He showed the court two film strips allegedly proving that the boy had not been distraught.

Then the defense presented the court an opinion by a child psychologist, based on professional literature, detailing the effect of detention on minors. She also wanted to present a special UN report by Professor Norak regarding the Convention Against Torture, which cites international law governing detention and children’s rights.

The prosecutor’s response: The cited opinion does not relate directly to the defendant’s case.

The prosecutor moves to call the expert himself to testify.

The judge’s decision: In view of the disagreement about the expert opinion, she sides with the prosecution: the experts need to be deposed. The defense can do so, if it wishes.

The defense asked to set a date for the defendant’s mother to testify, as well as for the expert witnesses.

The mother’s testimony was set for 14.6.11.

(See further details of the hearing in the protocol - Hebrew)

See also Amira Hass’s article in Haaretz on 23.5.11.

Courtroom 3 – Appeals court

Judge: Sgt.- Major Ronen Atzmon

Prosecutor: ??

Defense: Atty. Habib Labib

After the lunch break  we attended a hearing in the appeal of a “remand extension until the conclusion of the proceedings” (from 17.4.11) of Bassam Tamimi, age 44, ID 959225640 - Case No. 2058/11.

The defendant was one of several people incriminated by Islam Dar Ayoub. He was arrested on 24.3.11.

(See earlier report from 31.3.11 as well as the indictment – Hebrew - and a post in the site of the

Committee of the Popular Struggle]

The defense’s main arguments: the testimonies by 3 soldiers, claiming that Bassam Tamimi incited and gave orders to use violence during the weekly demonstrations [against land confiscation in Nabi Saleh], lack evidentiary base – there is no photographic documentation or recorded phone calls that can prove the charge of incitement.

The defense also protested the way the incriminator [Islam] was arrested and interrogated, insisting that the defendant’s name had been obtained from the boy by coercion.

The judge listened politely to the arguments, then several days later handed down his decision: the appeal was rejected – Bassam Tamimi will remain in custody until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Translation: Marganit W.

Courtroom 2(10:00 -13:30)

Judge: Major Avri Einhorn

Prosecutor: Lieutenant Erez Ashhar

There are 37 names in the docket with no mention of charges. The three and a half hours we observed dealt with remand extensions of 10 detainees, 9 of them minors.

Some were captured in the last few days, yet all were presented with indictments. Perhaps the closure imposed on the Territories during the Jewish holiday enabled the police and the GSS to act so expeditiously. This is mere speculation in view of the impressive pace of detentions, interrogations and indictments.

5 detainees were represented by Atty. Ihab Jalid.

Muhammad Mahmud Rashid Ziad – Case No. 2713/11, 16 years old.

He is charged with throwing rocks and Molotov Cocktails at security forces. Two prosecution witnesses incriminated him. The defendant denies the allegations and his attorney requests release under any condition the courts may see fit to impose on his client, including monetary guarantees. The defendant’s father is in the audience and pledges to make sure his son reports to court when summoned. The defense voices concern that the defendant, a student, may lose a school year.

The judge states that there is evidentiary ground (citing statement by Witness No. 2, who is himself a defendant incriminated by Witness No. 3) that the accused in fact committed the violations, which are particularly dangerous. The judge orders remand extension until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Presumably the detention will eventually be shorter due to a pending plea bargain between the sides, but bear in mind that such a decision may also result in a prolonged detention of up to two years (the legally permissible term - in the Territories - between arrest and verdict).

Arraignment hearing is set for 18.5.11 before Justice Etty Adar.

Nasser Aladdin Ziad – Case No. 2712/11, 16 years old (like the previous one, who may be a relative).

The same charge as the previous case. The defendant denies the allegations. The prosecution has 3 witnesses. Identical decision by the judge: detention until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Hearing set for 18.5.11 before Justice Etty Adar.

Shadi Dar Issa – Case No. 2714/11 and Shadi Zabrana – Case No. 2622/11, from Jilazoun.

 Both are 16 years old and accused of the same violations as in the previous cases, which both deny.

The prosecution has 3 witnesses, the defense presents the same arguments, and the judge  comes to the same decision: detention  until the concusion of the proceedings.

Arraignment hearing set for 18.5.11 before Justice Etty Adar.

The fifth detainee, Zuhaib Ramhi, Case No. 2715/11, is represented by Atty. Ihab Jalid.

He, too, is accused of throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at security forces, but unlike his friends, he has a record: he spent time in jail and has a suspended sentence for 12 months. The judge deviates from his previous formula and includes the following insight in his decision: “despite his previous jail term… he persists in his criminal way.”

Decision: detention until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Arraignment hearing is set for 18.5.11 before Justice Etty Adar.

Fadel Tamimi, Case No. 2697/11, from Nabi Salah.

He is accused of throwing rocks during a demonstration against the separation wall in the village of Nabi Salah. He was arrested two days earlier based on testimony by a soldier who identified him on YouTube because he is relatively older. The soldier claims he was hit in the leg by a rock thrown by the accused. The prosecution requests detention until the conclusion of the proceedings. The accused denies the allegations.

The defense, Atty. Lymor Goldstein, claims that the evidence against his client is scant and insufficient to justify detention: the testimony of one soldier, not given in real time but a week after the fact. There is no outside corroboration for the incident, or record of the injury to the soldier. The accused gave an alibi, but the prosecution did not bother to verify it. Moreover, the accused is a man over 50, with no prior record, with severe medical conditions; he has 9 children to support. In view of all this, the defense requests his release under any condition the court might deem proper.

The judge determined that the allegations warrant linking the accused to the charge and underscore the danger he poses. The judge added that the personal circumstances cited (age, medical condition, size of family) did not prevent him from taking part in the incident and throwing rocks. Thus, he rules: detention until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Arraignment hearing is set for 18.5.11 before Justice Major Shmuel Fleischman.

Alaa Abdullah Said Suleiman– Case No. 2698/11

Accused of membership and aiding and abetting an unlawful organization. He was arrested about four and half months ago. The prosecution requests detention until the conclusion of the proceedings. The evidence is based on incriminating testimony by two prosecution witnesses.

Defense attorney Lymor Goldstein points out inconsistencies in the incriminating evidence regarding membership (in the Popular Front- PFLP) and in the services rendered to the organization, which consisted of help in hanging pictures. Those are hearsay testimonies, which do not mention the source and they are full of holes, which the defense enumerates.

The judge rejects the defense’s arguments. He finds no fault with the incriminating testimony. At this stage of the procedure, the judge reminds us, this is sufficient evidentiary basis.

Decision: detention until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Arraignment set for 18.5.11 before Justice Major Shmuel Fleischman.

Naji Arar – Case No. 2546/11

We reported on Naji Arar’s case in Ofer Report on 10.4.11. Additional hearing took place on 21.4.11 in which, as is often the case when the charge is rock throwing, the witnesses incriminating Naji were detainees like him, awaiting trial.

There was no progress in today’s hearing, as the prosecution had not yet handed additional material to the defense, as per judge’s order. The judge decided that Naji should remain in detention until the conclusion of the proceedings and be brought to arraignment hearing on 18.5.11 before Justice Major Shmuel Fleischman.

By our count, Fleischman will be the fourth judge to decide in the case of the IDF against Naji Arar for the charges of rock throwing and membership in an unlawful organization.

We will continue to follow the case.

Translation: Marganit W.

morning and afternoon sessions.

On Thursdays there are mostly remand extensions at Ofer. Sometimes urgent hearings are conducted too.

Today the compound was half empty. Only 3 courtrooms were operating

We attended two hearings in Courtroon 2 presided by Justice Major Amir Dahan.

One case was of a Palestinian staying illegally in Israel. It is the usual story: the defendant lives in Beit Nabala. There is no work there, so he tried to find work in Beit Hanina, where he was caught being an “illegal sojourner”.

Timor Matur, ID 853743391 -Case No. 2069/11– remand extension for 4 days.

The prosecution moves for detention until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Oudai Tamimi,ID 8537009343– Case No. 2068/11, from Nabi Salah.

For some reason, the hearing was postponed. The charge is throwing rocks.

In Courtroom 5, presided by Justice Major Etty Adar, all cases are remand extensions.

Rami Daraj, ID 854342573, 17 years old, is charged with throwing Molotov cocktails (4 years ago). The defense moves to release his client on bail.

The defendant’s mother protests that there is no reason to detain her son.

The judge answers her politely.

Rami, too, is allowed to speak. He claims the policemen beat him during the interrogation, forcing him to accept the charges.

In one case the attorney did not show up. The judge was ready to release the suspect, but when the latter said he had no money for the bail, she said, “So you’ll remain in custody until the conclusion of the proceedings.”

 A hearing for the examination of the bail was set for 7.4.11. The judge also allowed the suspect one phone call to his family to arrange his release on bail.

After the break, at 14:00, we attended the hearing in Courtroom 1 we had actually come for:

the case of Bassam Tamimi, 44, ID 959225640, Case No 2058/11 - from Nabi Salah.

Bassam is a key figure in the popular struggle against the separation wall and against the occupation, and together with Naji Tamimi (who is also in detention) organizes the struggle in his village.

(See article by Amira Haas on 27.3.11)

Bassam Tamimi was incriminated (among others) by the child Islam Dar Ayoub.

(See report on Islam’s interrogation)

Judge: Major Zvi Heilbronn

Prosecutor: Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Atty. Habib Labib

There were about 20 people in the audience: family members, many diplomats, intellectuals, Anarchist Against the Fence and us.

(See Press Release by Popular Struggle Committee)

Since the indictment was submitted only today, the defense requested postponement to study the material. The defense also requested video-cassettes from the prosecution.

This is a very serious indictment, which involves incitement.

(For details see indictment in Hebrew)

Decision: the case is postponed to Sunday 10.4.11 for review by a detention judge.