Ofer

Translation: Marganit W.

We entered the court compound without a hitch. Only remand extension hearings were held today in two halls. All other hearings were re-scheduled due to conferences. We were told that the attorneys and the families had not been informed of the change.

In Courtroom 2 remand extension hearings were conducted for a docket of 32
"Days Detainees".
 

Judge: Lieut.-Col. Shmuel Kedar
Prosecutor: Atty. David Gabai Richter

About half of the detainees have no charge sheets yet. Their interrogation has been completed; all have violations involving "risk factor". The prosecution enumerates some of the violations and requests remand extension to complete the indictment. At this stage of the procedure the interrogation material is confidential: the attorney is not familiar with the evidence presented to the judge. The judge examines the file and within minutes decides on how many days are required for the prosecution to complete the indictment.
Other detainees (17 today) do have charge sheets. Some confess to at least a few violations. Based on their admission, their attorneys bargain with the prosecution for reduced penalty (plea bargain). The judge declares that he is not OBLIGATED to accept the agreement, but he eventually accepts it - since the suspect has confessed, thereby saving the court's precious time, or conversely, since there are "evidentiary difficulties" in the file  (the prosecution may not be able to prove its case while the admission in itself is not sufficient to convict). Thus, the court prefers to impose a reduced sentence, without convincing evidence, rather than release the suspect, taking into account circumstances such as no prior record, the age of the suspect, the state of his health etc.
 

Detainees who do not confess during their interrogation, have their detention extended for several days, until "conditions are ripe" for a plea bargain, when they confess to acts that they did or did not commit, hoping to shorten their jail term. (The few detainees who adamantly refuse to confess will have to fight for their innocence in a long evidentiary trial.)
 

Today's session included detainees with and without charges, some who confessed and others who denied the allegations. They were all represented by an attorney; most had relatives in court. A considerable number of violations involved illegal stay in Israel. This all too common violation is usually coupled with other charges, such as "causing damage to the separation wall," using false papers, possession of a knife, fleeing the police and attacking a policeman or a soldier. For example:
 

Abdulrahim  Muhammad Mahmud Znobar, ID 990000952 - Case 1040/12
Defense: Atty Issam Mrar

Znobar is accused of staying in Israel without a permit and causing damage to a military installation (the separation fence).
The detainee is 51 years old. He has been sitting in court since early morning: his case came before the judge only toward noon. He speaks fluent Hebrew and tries to explain his situation, but the judge tells him repeatedly, "Tell it to your attorney," refusing to let him speak.
The prosecution moves to detain the suspect until the procedure is complete.
The suspect admits to having crossed the fence illegally, but he insists that there was already a hole in the fence.

The attorney explains that his client crossed into Israel to receive donations from an organization that operates inside Israel, helping him with medical expenses. He was caught right away (and captured on camera), but no tools were found on him with which he could have broken the fence (the attorney specifically mentions a disk saw, which is heavy and unwieldy). The police report contains contradictory statements by an observer and by security forces patrolling the area. The defense presents documents testifying to the detainee's severe, life threatening medical condition.
The judge rejects the prosecution's motion and releases the accused under
limiting conditions: a 5000-shekel deposit with third party guarantee of 5000.
Arraignment hearing is set for 13.2.12 before Major Meir Vigiser.
 

Other cases heard today were also marked by blowing routine occurrences out of proportion.
A boy in detention for 12 days is charged with carrying, possessing and producing arms. It turns out that the boy was collecting bullets and shells found in a field near an army base located close to his village.
Perhaps he intended to use these for some purpose, but the judge decided to accept the plea bargain struck between the sides, declaring the 12 days already served as actual jail time, plus a suspended sentence of 3 months for a year and a 1000 shekel fine or a month in jail.

The boy could be released today, if he paid the fine.

Harabi Abed Rabba, ID 952905669 - Case 1043/12
Defense: Atty. Rony Salman
A 45-year old shepherd, father of 8, living in the mountains near Yatta, where he tends to a flock of 80 sheep.

He looks out of place in the court: neither a city dweller, nor a farmer - someone living outside familiar circumstances.
During the hearing for his remand extension, he was charged with endangering human life in traffic, using a - suspected - stolen vehicle, fleeing from the police and possession of a knife.
The judge rejects the defense's motion and sides with the prosecution that argues for clear and imminent danger and flight risk. The file, he claims, points to severe violations.

In a session that took place on 17.1.12 – a week later - this case was presented before Justice Lieut.-Col. Menashe Vachnish. The file already included a charge sheet. The prosecutor was Captain Mazi Mekonen.
Harab Abed Rabbe admitted trying to flee the police for fear that his vehicle would be impounded since it had no registered owner and was about to be taken apart.
The defense explained that his client is a simple man, detached from urban life, living in the mountains with his family and flock, having minimal contact with people, and he had never been in trouble with the law.

The defense pointed out discrepancies in the officers' testimonies regarding an
assault. He requested the court to release his client under any conditions the judge sees fit, since detaining him would wreak havoc on his family: there is nobody to take care of his flock.
Two brothers of the accused were in court, ready to "assume full responsibility for him", meaning, presumably, that they guarantee he won't "flee from justice" and report to court, if required.
In his decision, the judge refrained from addressing the differences between prosecution and defense, ignoring the main charge of fleeing from the police and attacking an officer. The judge declared the accused 'dangerous' because he drove a condemned vehicle, thus endangering life.
This, according to the judge, was the reason for the arrest, and this is why the man is a flight risk. [The judge may not know it, but "ownerless" vehicles, which are unregistered and uninsured, are commonly used by locals in the Palestinian enclaves of C area].
The judge ordered a remand extension until the conclusion of the proceedings and set an arraignment hearing for 13.2.12 before Justice Meir Vigiser.

 

 

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.

I came to Ofer this morning to watch the continuing trial of Mustafa Odeh - Case 5406/11. He is the Wallaje resident whose trial we have been following for several weeks now. It was important to hear the testimony of the complainant in this case, a BP officer.
I showed up at the gate at 9:30 and waited there with a representative from the Women Prisoners Committee. It was very cold and rainy. We waited until 11. Only then were we allowed to enter the compound to undergo the security check. I was not able to enter the court until 11:15, when the hearing had just finished.
This is not the first time that this happens lately. For several weeks an order "from above" stipulates that visitors can be admitted only after all the Palestinians are in. We certainly support the principle that Palestinians should be admitted as fast as possible. However, it is unconscionable that those who wish to observe the trials will miss the hearings, which they specifically came to attend.

Last week we contacted Haled Hamdan, Public Relations Officer of the Military Courts, to complain. He explained that he was not  responsible and that the order had indeed come from "above".

A visitor to the courts does not care whether the order comes from the Prison Authority, the Military or the Court itself. As far as we are concerned, the principle of  Public Hearings has become a sham and a fiction.

Some people come from Tel Aviv and even farther to attend the trials. Sometimes also diplomats wait for hours to be admitted to the compound - in all kinds of weather. They accept it as part of the military court system and they note the unreceptive procedures.
We protest this blatant attempt to prevent us from exercising our right to be present at the hearings we are interested in. Thus, I have asked MachsomWatch legal counsel to lodge an official complaint and try to rectify the situation.

 

Translation: Marganit W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Translation: Marganit W.

Follow-up on cases reported earlier.

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

Judge: Major Meir Vigiser

Prosecutor: Major Nathanel Kola

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati

[See previous report regarding Sausan’s case]

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Judge: Major Meir Vigiser

Prosecutor: Lieutenant Avishai Kaplan

Defense: Nery Ramati

(See previous report regarding his case)

Amir’s father was present in court.

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

50 years old  

(See previous report regarding his case)

Judge: Sergeant-major Ronen Atzmon

Prosecutor: Atty. Major Orit Pargi Bechar

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati

The defendant’s mother was present during the proceeding.

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

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

-Who pushed whom?

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

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

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

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

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

Translation: Marganit W.

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

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

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

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

Judge: Sgt.-Major Ronen Atzmon

Prosecutor: Captain Odelia Kardoner

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati

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

His mother was present in the court.

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

 

Courtroom 5

Judge: Major Meir Vigiser

Prosecutor: Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati

Evidentiary Hearing.

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

Resident of Beit Ummar, a 22-year old student

In custody since 12.10.11.

His mother and another relative are present in court.

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

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

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

The prosecution summoned two witnesses.

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

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

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

-I don’t remember what I said.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. Before the investigation?

A. Before or after…Never during the investigation.

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

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

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

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

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

A. I don’t agree. A liar is a liar.

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

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

Q. Are you a juvenile interrogator?

A. No…

Q. Did you follow the Juvenile Law?

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

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

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

Q. How long did this questioning last?

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

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

 

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

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

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

To be continued next week.

 

 

  

Translation: Marganit W.

About thirty people were waiting in the outer court for the guard to issue entry permits. They were heading for the Traffic Court. Our colleague Haya Ofek has written about the shenanigans taking place in that court in her report entitled "Guide to the Perplexed". We, too, were heading that way.

 We found the usual collection of traffic violations: driving without a license, failure to stop at a stop sign, ignoring a dividing line etc. If you know nothing about the social and political background of the violators and the violations, everything may look routine. Only later do things get clearer.

Two police officers pleaded for the prosecution: the veteran Gaby Romy and a
young lawyer who told me she is a rooky and still learning the ropes.

This is how it went:
A trial was in progress before a judge (f.) whose name we don't know. The prosecutor read from a list the name of one of the traffic violators who was in court. He approached her, and right there, before he had a chance to talk to the judge, or to plead his case, the prosecutor offered him a prepared plea bargain, explaining the risks, i.e., the severe sentence he would get if he did not accept the bargain. Most defendants accept; it turned out that most have already paid a large part of the fine included in the plea bargain, when they received the citation.
 

One defendant, a contractor who often works in Israel, was coming home
from a funeral with his wife and 5 children at 11 PM, driving on a dark road from Ephrat to Rt. 60. An officer stopped him claiming he had crossed a white dividing line. The man denied the allegation, claiming it was not his vehicle; the place was totally dark so the officer could not possibly identify his car from many other similar vehicles. His wife also testified. We were convinced. The judge, however had to decide between the word of a policeman and the word of a Palestinian civilian. No surprises. She believed the policeman. The contractor was fined 1500 shekels (a 1000 of which he had already paid when detained) and his license was suspended for a month.
 

During the policeman's testimony we discovered something interesting: he said he knew that road very well because he and other policemen had taken part in building that road. It turns out that Israeli police officers receive special permits to work in road construction and other projects of the Civil Administration, while they are o vacation, as a way of generating some extra income. Can anyone of our educated readers check the legality of this practice?
 

We wrote down the penalties and fines received by traffic violators during the hour and a half we sat in the court:
-For driving without a license and without insurance - 3000 shekels and suspended sentence of 4 months for 3 years.
-For driving without a license - 3000 shekels [the defendant asked to prorate the fine].
-Ignoring a stop sign - 1500 shekels.
-In addition: one fine of 3000 shekels, 5 fines of 1500 each and one 1000 shekel fine.
 

In order to verify our impression that this procedure is a cash cow for the benefit of the Israeli police, we went to the Traffic Court at Giva-Shaul to watch the trials that take place there. For unrelated reasons, we were able to watch very little, but we gained a couple of insights:
A. All the defendants there were Arabs, so we could not determine if there was bias based on nationality.
B. There was nothing resembling a plea bargain, which is common in the military courts.
C. The judge seemed pleasant and fair.

 

Translation: Marganit W.

 Morning and Afternoon

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

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

See a film documenting the arrest

See article by Amira Hass on the same subject

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

Judge: Major Zvi Heilbron

Prosecutor: Major Nathanela Kola

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati and Atty. Akram Samara

Defendants:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

   

 Translation: Marganit W.

Morning + afternoon sessions

Norah’s report:

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

I report on hearings in Courts 5 and 7.

Courtroom 5

Judge: Major Shmuel Fleischman

Prosecutor: Captain Avishai Kaplan

Defense: Atty. Lymor Goldstein

I was present at the following hearings:

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

See earlier reports of this case: 7.6.10 and 3.11.10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some of his pearls of wisdom:

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

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

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

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

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

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

All this was said with a smug smile.

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

The defendants:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Throwing objects [rocks] at moving traffic.

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

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

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

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

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

 

Courtroom 7

Judge: Major Meir Vigiser

Prosecutor: ?

Defense: atty. Lymor Goldstein

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Hava’s report

Courtroom 1

Judge: Major Etty Adar

Prosecutor: Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Atty. Labib Habib

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

 Handbook for Guerilla Warfare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Explain the photos you mentioned.

A: We went house to house mapping the inhabitants.

Q: What does that mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: Yes.

Q: But the protests continued?

A: Yes.

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

A: Yes.

The trial will resume on 28.11.11.