Health Problems

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.

Magistrate Court

Following yesterday’s events [Naqba Day] we decided to go to the Magistrate court because many youngsters from the Jerusalem area had been arrested.

The line at the entrance was very long. Only two members of family of each detainee were  allowed to attend– this applied both to Jews and Arabs.

After going through screening, we looked for the remand extension court for those arrested yesterday and the day before.

Those hearings took place in two halls: Justice Feinberg’s and Justice Irit Cohen’s courts [on the first and third floors]. Many jurists and members of family crowded the entrance to Justice Feinberg’s court. We spoke to Atty. Adnan Odeh who told us, “You should have come Saturday night. Many detainees were brought in injured: broken arms, broken fingers, facial cuts and severe back pain from beatings with butts.

Atty. Odeh represented 25 detainees on Saturday, 8 yesterday and 10 today.

The first case was of a minor. From earlier visits to the compound we knew that when a case involves a Jewish minor, only people directly connected to the case are allowed in, whereas in hearings of Palestinian kids, the principle of ‘behind closed doors’ does not exist. Roni and I, as well as all the other visitors, were ordered to leave the room. We obeyed. The minor was brought in (together with the other detainees) without a blindfold, for all to see. The door to Justice Feinberg’s court remained open [The halls in this compound are small and hot]. Since the door was open, passers by could pop in and peek in unimpeded. Thus, the case of the boy from Mount of Olives was not accorded the discretion a juvenile deserves.

We ran into a young man from Isawwiya, waiting with his mother for the hearing in the case of two brothers arrested on Friday or Saturday. One of them, 34 years old, needed hospitalization at Hadassah Ein Karem because of blows to the head he had suffered. He was left unattended during the night. The younger brother suffers from a rare disease, and needs medication, which he gets from Sweden. The police told the brother that a police doctor had examined the patient and “everything is fine, he does not need medication from home.”

The young man and his mother are now waiting for the 2 brothers to be brought in for remand extension.

Between the first and third floor we saw the Public Defender on duty, Muhammad Una Bossi running up and down, as he represented many detainees. About 80 people expected to have their remand extended by Justice Feinberg. Only a fraction of them have private attorneys.

Since the rooms are so small, from time to time we were asked to leave, to make room for family members. We observed one case of a 20 year old from Mount of Olives, represented by Atty. Anwwar Abulafiya.

The defense pleaded for leniency for the detainee who is recovering from a car accident. He asked for his client to be released. The father offered to vouch for his son’s appearance when summoned before the court.

The defense pointed to his client’s bruised arm. The judge inspected it saying, “scars from the accident as well as “newer” bruises. The judge was not particularly moved by the blows the detainee had suffered, and extended the detention by 5 more days.

This is a security case involving an attack on police.

80 more detainees were scheduled for remand extensions.

We left the court.

Translation: Marganit W.

 Morning and Afternoon sessions

The trial of Bassam Tamimi is rescheduled for 15.5.11

After the break, appeals of two Nabi Salah detainees were heard, presented by Atty. Limor Goldstein:

Fadel Tamim Hassan Tamimi and Mahmud Wajia Mahmud Tamimi.

Justice Major Benishu’s decisions have not been handed down yet.

A 15-year old from Bil’in, Ayad Hatib (Prosecution Case No.1966/11) was arrested last Friday and then brought before Justice Sharon Kenan. The boy’s face bore the marks of beating and his  hand was bandaged. The boy said that soldiers had showered him with blows and kicks. The judge stated that the file he was holding did not mention that the boy had resisted arrest, and there was no explanation for the fact that his hand had been bandaged by a medic.

The judge remanded him in custody until Thursday, 12.5.11 and instructed the court to allow him 5 phone calls at the state’s expense to contact his family. Atty. Goldstein requested setting the hearing for Wednesday.

Courtroom 2

Judge: Captain Etty Adar

Prosecutor: Asher Silver

Between 10 am and 1:30 pm two prosecution witnesses were questioned in the evidentiary trial of Adham Muhamad Azmi Ahlil – Case No. 2006/11, a 20 year old resident of Beit Ummar.

His mother is present in court. She tells me that Adham was arrested 2 months ago in a schoolyard, on a charge of throwing rocks. He is represented by Atty. Akram Bargout.

The first witness to testify is one of the incriminators who implicated the accused. He is a 17 year old boy, dressed in prison uniform, his feet shackled (the handcuffs were removed when he was brought in). He sits on a chair, his head bent, staring at the floor,

When I walked in, the prosecutor’s interrogation was in progress. Concluding his testimony, the witness said that Interrogator Fares made him sign a statement whose content was unknown to him.

In cross-examination by the defense, the witness denies everything he said in the police interrogation: he did not throw rocks, he did not see others throwing rocks, he was not asked about 26 (!) other people mentioned in his statement, he does not know the accused, he did not state that his brother is married to the defendant’s sister etc. etc. The witness claims to be illiterate. Regarding questions that do not touch directly on his detention and police interrogation, Adham states clearly: he works around the clock in a garage located below his family’s apartment, where he also sleeps.

The second witness, Amru Shukran Abu Rahman is also a 17 year old from Beit Ummar . He is a high school student and was arrested on 24.2.11 for throwing rocks.

In reply to the prosecutor’s questions he admits having thrown rocks a long time ago, perhaps ten years ago.

The prosecutor declares him a hostile witness. Later in the interrogation he confronts him with a statement he gave to the police (in Arabic), which he signed. The witness’s response: “I did not sign, this is not my signature.” He does not even remember being interrogated by the police. He remembers being arrested by the army, being taken to Etzion [police station] where he was kept for 8 days, “during which I did not see any interrogators or policemen, not even in civilian clothes (GSS) and I was not interrogated.”

His answers to other questions posed by Atty. Bargout in cross-examination were similar: “I don’t know, I don’t remember’ I was not interrogated.”

Declaring him “hostile witness” (following his denial of almost everything in his police statement) serves the prosecution. It is a procedure aimed at undermining the testimony in the eyes of the court, thus strengthening the elements of the statement that help build the case.

A date was set, 16.5.11, for deposing two more witnesses: the investigators who took the statement.

Courtroom 5

Judge: Major Sharon Kenan

Prosecutor: Lieutenant Avishai Kaplan.

Allam Yousuf Bader Saakik – Case No. 2359/11, 16 years old from Beit Ummar. He is held in custody until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Allam is accused of throwing rocks, based on an incriminator who testified that the two threw rocks together about six months ago. Atty. Akram Bargout, who received the case from another lawyer, discovered that the accused had been in jail (for throwing rocks) for 4 months, and hence could not have taken part in another incident on the date specified in the indictment.

Consequently, the prosecution amended the charge, fitting the violation to a date AFTER Allam ‘s release from jail. There is also a suspended sentence against Allam, but it will not go into effect if the present charge cannot be proved.

The defense objected to amending the charge, arguing that even after the change, there is not enough evidence for the present charge, and he demanded his client’s release.

The judge accepted the defense’s argument regarding the insufficient proof and decided on release under the following conditions: 5000 shekels deposit and reporting to court on 16.5.11 in front of Justice Sharon Rivlin-Ahai.

The boy’s mother sat in court (another son is in detention and his hearing is today in another courtroom). The father is old and sick and cannot provide for his family. It is unlikely that the family will be able to pay the sum required for Allam’s release. In addition, the prosecution is appealing the release and the appeal hearing is scheduled for this coming Wednesday.

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: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound

Judge: Col. Hanan Rubinstein

Police investigator: Bashir Amar

Defence Attorney: Ma’amoun Hashim, Fahmi Shkirat, Firas Sabbah

There were 4 cases in the docket today. No cases of people barred from meeting an attorney.

We were present at deliberations concerning 3 detainees.

A drill began in the Russian Compound complex, so the hearings were interrupted, and the investigator requested a break.

Mahdi Faiz Salameh Younes, I.D. 850322645

He is represented by Attorney Fahmi Shkirat.

The parties agree to extend the detainee’s detention until Thursday (17.3.11), that is - 4 more days. The case will then be transferred to the prosecution at Ofer Military Court.

Mashhur Muhammad Salame Abu Dahara, I.D. 941931008

He is represented by Attorney Firas Sabbah.

The investigators tried to reach an agreement with the defence attorney, but the detainee did not agree.

The suspect is charged with conspiracy to perform an offence - taking part in an attempt to abduct a soldier.

The police investigator requests another 8 days remand extension for the investigation. The detainee had taken a polygraph test. The investigator who performed the test said that he was found to be telling the truth. That is, the detainee admitted that he knows people accused of a similar offence to the one he is accused of, but he did not participate in planning, at any stage.

When the defence attorney tried to obtain more information, the answer was generally – “the information is in the confidential report”.

Summing up, the defence attorney said that this is the third remand extension of his client, who had taken a polygraph test and found to be telling the truth. Those involved (whose files are already with the prosecution) did not incriminate him. Therefore he asks that Abu Dahara be released, or his remand shortened, and his file transferred to the prosecution.

The judges decision: the detainee was arrested on 18.2.11. This is his third remand extension. From the confidential information he understands that the police is capable of performing the investigative actions remaining in a four-day period, and then to transfer the case of Abu Dahara to the prosecution.

Muhammad Ahmed Amar, ID 954011649

Defence attorney:Ma’amoun Hashim

The suspect was detained on 7.3.11 by the army.

Ma’amoun asked: Was the suspect ‘wanted’ or summoned?

The Investigator answered: In the report I do not see that any summons was sent.

Q. You agree that the suspect has not committed any offences?

A. No. He committed an offence in the 1990s, for which he was arrested and tried [he did not specify what the offence was].

Most of the questions now were answered by: "it’s in the confidential file".

Q:  The detainee claims that you did not let him sleep for 4 days.

A: There's no such thing with us. Details are available about each investigation session. The latest session recorded was at midnight. It’s a fact that he slept. And in the middle of one investigation, he was taken to the prison clinic.

Q. Does the suspect link himself to the suspicions?

A: It's in the confidential report.

The police investigator again requested another 18 days investigation.

The defence attorney summed up: The suspect was detained on 7.3.11. From then until today, he has been under prolonged investigation. The suspect claims that he was not allowed to sleep for 4 days. He was interrogated for membership in Hamas, for being a leader in Hamas. There is no evidence of this. He owns a petrol station, and has 16 children. I request to reduce the number of interrogation days.

The suspect asked to speak:

"Your Honour, I have never done anything against the State of Israel. I was arrested put me in this dungeon. Every day I need insulin shots at regular times which are not give to me here. It’s causing problems for me. Besides, I have respiratory problems. If you extend my detention I request to be removed from this dungeon".

The judge’s decision: the suspect committed offences against regional security. Since his arrest he had been under investigation. This is recorded in the memoranda of in his file, which shows that he was interrogated every day.

The confidential information in the reports establishes reasonable suspicion that detainee is a member of Hamas.

He extended remand by another 11 days.

Samer Harabi Abdullah Abu Shama, I.D. 978518363

Defence attorney: Fahmi Shkirat

We left before the hearing of this case, because a drill was being held in the complex, and the detainee was not allowed into the courtroom until the drill was over.

Translation: Marganit W. 

Ofra’s report:

In Courtroom 2, presided by Major Sharon Rivlin-Ahai, about 20 boys from Bethlehem, Ramallah, Hebron, Abu-Dis and other places were brought in for hearing. Note that the average detention period of these children is between 2-7 months!

Apart from that, everything is familiar and repetitive: the children’s detention – some would call it kidnapping – in the middle of the night, when the army burst into their homes, terrorizing the sleeping families, forcing the father to turn in the son, while the soldiers mill around the house. This scene happens in hundreds of Palestinian homes every year. The charges are the usual ones too: preparing and/or throwing rocks, Molotov cocktails and other objects. Essentially, the system seeks to extract a confession and obtain a plea bargain under the threat of long detention. Again and again we witness the distress of kids having to choose between honor and truth and despair and surrender.

The Abu Dis group consists of more than 10 kids, already in custody for more than 4 months. They get to meet their parents only in court. The four we saw today have resisted the pressure from the system and refused to accept the charges.

Without a confession there is no plea bargain and no release.

Hearing will continue on 7.2.11 (see earlier report )

Jihad Erikat – Case No. 3968/10 – 16.5 years old

Defense: Atty. Ahmad Safiya

Like the others, Jihad has been in detention since 16.9.10. He signed a deposition without knowing its content, but now he denies the charges and rejects the plea bargain. It turns out that the interrogator threatened to put him in jail for a long time if he does not confess, telling him that his friends had incriminated him and would testify against him. So far Jihad has not yielded under pressure.

Witnesses will be summoned for a hearing in a month – a long time for Jihad, during which he won’t see his family, nor attend school, and will be kept under pressure of the system.

Walid Haled Jumaa Sharef – Case No.5317/10, 17.5 years old

Defense: Atty. Akram Samara

Haled has been in detention for 40 days. He has a congenital disease, which can be seen in his face and hands. In the past he was treated at Hadassah. Most of the discussion was about his health. The defense demands an examination by an external physician. The judge responded that on 9.12.10 Haled was seen by the prison doctor and found to be all right, no deterioration was noted in his condition. The defense insists that a doctor appointed by the family decide if Haled can stay in jail.

The judge now changes her tune: she goes along with the defense, explaining that the prosecution won’t object. Perhaps our presence in court helped “soften” the judge’s position.

The father claims that Haled cannot use his hands normally, thus the charges against him are trumped. It is impossible that the investigator did not see this. He must have deliberately ignored it and omitted it from the report, so as not to vitiate the indictment.

Haled does not accept the charges. He complains that the interrogator roughed him up and cursed him.

It is decided to summon the interrogator to testify in the next hearing.

Fadi Erikat – Case No. 4076/10, 16 years old.

Muhammad Ayad – Case No. 4702/10, 16 years old.

Defense: Atty. Muhammad Ramzi Mahmoud

In both cases the process was very short. Since there is no plea bargain, a new date for evidentiary hearing was set when prosecution witnesses will testify.

Abdullah Abu Awad– Case No. 2847/10, 17 years old, from Ramallah

Defense: Atty. Akram Samara

When Abdullah was 13, the Israeli army gouged his eye. He has a glass eye. He has been in detention for 7 months on charges of “manufacturing and throwing an incendiary object” on military jeeps between 2008-1010. Moreover, he is accused of “being a member of a military unit” since he was 14!

Here is another example of the phenomenon of “recruited children:” against their will, Palestinian children are turned into Palestinian soldiers by the Israeli occupier, who, from the moment of arrest, treats them as adults, in contravention of international convention on children’s rights. Not surprisingly, after 7 months months in detention, Abdullah was forced to accept a plea bargain. When he stood between the judge and his mother admitting his guilt, his body language expressed the demeaning oppression that forced him to do so. The result: 20-month jail term! Plus one year suspended sentence for 4 years and a 2000 shekel fine.

Milli’s report:.

Bahar Kamel, 17.5 years old. He was brought to court after having been released on bail.

He was accompanied by his mother. He had been released because of insufficient evidence. He denied the allegations. There was a problem with the incriminating evidence, and it was doubtful if the prosecution would be able to summon the witnesses who had been released in the meantime.  

Still, a plea bargain was presented and accepted by the court. According to the agreement, charges of participation in demonstrations and damage to tires were dropped, and only the charge of rock throwing remained.

Behar was sentenced to 17 days in jail, to coincide with time spent in detention, plus suspended sentence of 3 months for 2 years and a 1500 shekel fine to be deducted from money deposited upon his release.

Translation: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound

Judge: Dov Gilboa

Police investigator: Nissim Argaman

Defence: Maamoun Hashim

There are 6 cases in the docket, two of which have been barred [from meeting an attorney].

 Judge Gilboa arrived at around 11:00, and deliberations began only then.

 Sajed Hassan Abed al Kadr Alkata, I.D. 852938216 – barred from meeting his attorney.

 The investigator seeks a remand extension of 18 days and presents Justice Gilboa with a thick file of investigation documents. The detainee was arrested on 11.10.10. Since then he has been under investigation - that is, 34 days. He was declared barred only on 18.10, and since then the prohibition has not been removed.

The defence attorney asks the police investigator:

Q. Has the investigation made progress?

A.  The answer is in the confidential report.

Q. Has the detainee linked himself to the suspicions?

A. There are gaps.

Q. Has he given his version?

A. Yes, he links himself to some of the suspicions.

Q. Has he been questioned about membership in Hamas?

A. The suspicion appears in the report.

The defence attorney asks the judge’s intervention to obtain a more detailed answer.

Justice Gilboa refuses, and supports the police investigator.

This ploy is repeated at least once more.

Q. How many more investigation sessions have to be performed?

The investigator checks the file and replies –

1. Eight. The suspicions are complex and grave, and their investigation is

complicated and wide-ranging.

Q.  A remand extension of 18 days is unusual: another 15 days can be requested. For how many days, hours and seconds has the suspect been investigated by the GSS?

A. He underwent intensive investigations.

 The judge intervenes and asks the defence attorney to conclude his questions and concentrate on the remand extension. The judge talks aggressively and points out that he is the one who decides here, and this is his decision.

 Q. Does the suspect have any medical problems? (we know from his attorney that during his prolonged detention, he visited the clinic)

A. Refers to a section in the confidential report.

 Justice Gilboa requests to conclude the proceedings.

We show Justice Gilboa the preliminary injunction of the High Court decision, so he can consider allowing us to remain for the part where the detainee is brought in.

After glancing at the document, he demands firmly that we leave.

Muhamed Abdulla Muhamed Abed, I.D. 41028722. Resident of Ramallah.

The investigator again requests a remand extension of another 18 days.

The detainee was arrested in October this year. He is 66.

The defence attorney talks to his client. The police investigator walks in and out, constantly talking on his phone. It’s unclear if the detainee is barred, or not.

The discussion between the defence attorney and his client is halted. During the first ten days of his detention, the detainee was not barred.  It was only afterwards that he was declared barred from meeting his attorney. The ban ended on 14 October, at night. It was unclear if they had asked to renew the ban. The parties are waiting for a letter that will clarify the matter, but so far it hasn’t arrived and the remand extension discussion continues.

The defence attorney’s questions revolve around a meeting and his client’s connection with a person named Azzam Lakra (?)

A.: The status of the investigation appears in the report, I can’t relate to the question, because it concerns names.

 The judge responds to the repeated questions of Attorney Hashim about Azzam Lakra (?) by saying that he refuses to hear any more questions about that name, and asks the defence attorney to focus on the remand extension and to sum up.

 The judge’s decision: another 8 days.

Abed al-Razek Said Abed al-Razek Hassib, I.D. 900477126

 His lawyer is Attorney Firas, but since he has to appear in court at the same time in Ashkelon, Attorney Hashim is replacing him.

The police are seeking a remand extension of another 15 days for the investigation. This will be the fifth extension. The detainee has already been detained and under investigation for a month and five days.

Q. Have you managed to complete the investigation?

A. There are six more actions to perform.

Q. The detainee says that he was not interrogated for 20 consecutive days, and when he was taken for a two-hour interrogation, he was questioned for only 20 minutes. Perhaps you have nothing else to investigate?

Summing up, the judge granted the police a further 8 days.

We saw, and in particular in the matter of the first detainee, how easy it is to grant more days for investigation, even when the detainee has not met his attorney – the person who is meant to defend him and his rights – for close to a month. One after the other, the judges added more days, apparently without taking into account the detainees being barred, and the numerous days of investigation.

Translation: Marganit W.

Russian Compound

Judge: Shmuel Fleischman

Investigator: Mussa Hadr

Defense: Maamoun Hashim

Hearings of remand extension of 3 detainees.

The judge arrived at 11 instead of at 10, because "he was apparently misinformed". The typist, the defense, the interpreter and we too had been waiting since 10 o'clock.

In two of the three cases the sides had reached an agreement about the remand extension.

The case of the first detainee was heard in less than two minutes.

The hearing of the second case took longer even though there was agreement between the sides, because the agreement had been reached by phone. Justice Fleischman objected to the agreement. He ordered Atty. Tawil [Atty. Tawil and Atty. Naji represent the detainee] to send a written agreement, or alternatively, the police investigator had to agree that Atty. Maamoun Hashim would represent the detainee, with the agreement of the detainee's defense.

Hashim conferred with the defense and obtained his consent to be present at the remand extension hearing. The extension was for 11 days.

In reply to the judge's question, the detainee said that he had medical problems [short breath]. The judge noted in the protocol that medical treatment should be continued.

With Atty. Tawil's consent, Justice Fleischman informed the detainee that his status was changed from prisoner to detainee (i.e., he was taken out of jail, where he was incarcerated for a prior conviction and brought to the Russian Compound to answer new charges). After being in jail for several months, his investigation on new allegations will continue.

There was no agreement between the sides in the third case. Atty. Maamoun Hashim represented the detainee, whom he had just met for the first time.

A few months ago the detainee was arrested for staying in Israel illegally. He did not report to jail to do time. His present arrest is due to other charges: membership and activity in Hamas.

On 26.9.10 he gave a statement to the police.

The defense interrogated the police investigator:

Q: Was the detainee recruited by Hamas? Did someone try to recruit him? How long was he a member?

A: This is just the beginning of the investigation, I cannot elaborate. Everything is contained in the classified file.

Q: When was he a member of the organization?

A: He's currently active.

Q: Your assumption that the accused is a Hamas member is based on incrimination. Is your claim that he was recruited by Hamas based on someone incriminating him?

A: All charges are in the classified file.

Q: Did you confront the suspect with his incriminator?

A: The report of the investigation is in the classified file.

Q: When was he interrogated by the GSS?

A: On the 26^th and 28^th of September.

Several more questions were answered with the standard "it's in the classified file."

The police requested 15-day remand extension. The judged ruled 11 days. He noted in the protocol that since the detainee did not report to prison when charged with staying illegally in Israel, no alternative to incarceration can be considered by the court.
 

.

Translation: Marganit W.

Russian Compound

Judge: Arye Dorani

Police Investigator: Mr. Radi (Radi refuses to disclose his last name. We tried to press him, arguing that as a representative of the public he is obliged to identify himself, but he declined, citing "private reasons" for not disclosing his identity. He wouldn't let us read the protocols vain to find his name).

Defense: Attys. Maamoun Hashim and Fahmi Shkirat

There were 7 cases in the docket, one of them was a detainee "barred from meeting with his attorney".

But of all six cases where the detainees were not "barred" only one was discussed in court, in the remaining cases an agreement had been reached between the sides for a 7-day remand extension for three of them, and 9 day-remand extension for two. These files will be handed over to the military prosecution.

Justice Dorani asked each detainee: Did you have breakfast? Any medical complaint? Did the interrogators treat you well?

Two of the detainees complained of medical problems. One has a heart and lungs condition and uses an inhaler - though it is the wrong bottle - and the other one has an eye infection. Another detainee complained of headaches caused by the "red light" in his cell, which is never turned off.

Justice Dorani turns to the defense and says: "It's a good thing I asked, or we'd never know about these medical problems." Atty. Hashim replies that he has brought up the medical problems in previous hearings, but the jail authorities does not treat his request for medical care seriously and the detainee has only been seen by a GP, not by a specialist.

As for the treatment by the investigators - three detainees reported that the abuse they suffered was not physical but verbal: there was much cursing during the interrogation.

The First Detainee (represented by Atty. Shkirat)

The police request a 15-day remand extension. The man has been in detention since 15.9.10 on charges of "activity endangering security in the area". "Beyond that," says Radi, the police investigator, "I cannot elaborate. The info is in the classified file."

The defense had questions regarding the status of the investigation: has the detainee linked himself to the shooting of which he is accused. Mr. Radi referred him to the classified file.

The defense urges the judge to intervene and compel the investigator to answer his questions, but the judge explains at length that he cannot do so. Still, he turns to Radi and asks him to explain why the investigation cannot be shortened.

Radi steps out to consult the investigation supervisors and upon his return declares: Yes, we can shorten it to 11 days.

The defense asks the judge to try to advance the case to the prosecution, since the detainee has been in custody for a month!

The investigator's reply: We are doing our best to conclude the investigation and hand the case over to the prosecution, but there are certain developments that require a continuation of the investigation.

The defense asks about the detention of a relative of the detainee (his cousin Mahmud) - is it connected to his client's investigation?

The investigator's reply: Details concerning the links between the cousins and their involvement in the incident are in the classified file.

The defense' summation: The detainee was arrested on 30.8.10. He denies all allegation connecting him to the shooting incident. He made a statement to police admitting to lighter charges of rock throwing. The investigation has not progressed for a whole month. The investigation of the shooting incident has been going on for several months (prior to the suspect's arrest). Many people were arrested on the same charge and then released. Nobody has incriminated the suspect and there has been no progress in the investigation.

Here, the suspect wishes to address the court: "I've been in jail for 30 days. I was arrested with 40 other people from the village. I admit I threw rocks. Two people fingered me for rock throwing. Some of the interrogators beat me. They pull you hard by the coat (he points to his neck). They curse my mother and my sister."

Justice Dorani wants to know if he had breakfast and if a doctor has seen him about his skin lesions. The detainee says he has seen a doctor but the treatment did not help.

The Judge's Decision: ... It is my impression that there is a need for more time to conclude the investigation. I requested to reduce the number of days and make an effort to finish it. It turns out that this is feasible, and so I will instruct the court... The authorities of the holding facility will check the suspect's complaints regarding medical examination and treatment of the skin lesions on the detainee's hands.

As for the "barred" detainee: the judge was in favor of an open trial and looked on our presence in court favorably.

The investigator, on the other hand, pointed out that we publish reports and "perhaps his honor may want to ask questions which the detainee may wish to answer and this will complicate the investigation significantly."

We did not stay for the hearing of the "barred" detainee, as the judge declared a 20-minute recess (for lunch). It was 13:30 PM.

Translation: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound

Judge: Shalom Dahan

Police Investigator: Radi Khatib

Now and then, Investigator Nissim Argaman was present in court.

The judge and the police investigator are old friends because apparently they both appear a lot together at the Ashkelon Detention Centre.

As in previous weeks, today too we were not allowed to stay in the court during the discussion for extending the remand of a detainee who was barred from meeting an attorney. Today we encountered difficulty in finding out the ID numbers and further details about the detainees. Unlike previous times, the attorneys evaded answering our questions.

1. Ahmed Odeh. Resident of Bethlehem.

Has been detained since 14.7.10 at Beersheba prison, where he was barred from meeting his attorney. 8 days ago he was transferred to the Russian Compound. He suffers from asthma. Attorney Fahmi Shkirat represents him, and met him for the first time today.

The charge: suspected of activity against security in the region.

Regarding the asthma - the judge asked the attorney: do we have documents proving that he suffers from asthma?

I (Hava H.) answer in his stead: Yes of course, when they came at night to arrest him he should have told the soldiers, wait a minute I must take my medicine and medical papers.

In any event, the judge said, the health of the detainee is the responsibility of the prison service.

Attorney Shkirat agreed on behalf of the detainee to a remand extension of five days. The detainee was given permission to talk and he asked to be moved as soon as possible to Ofer. Conditions in the Russian Compound are apparently very bad.

Decision: remand is extended until 1.8.10.

2. Kamal Rais Hamed, aged 40, was arrested on 5.7.10 near the Cave of Machpela in Hebron, on suspicion of activity against security in the region. There is an agreement between Attorney Shkirat and the prosecution to extend remand until 5.8.10.

3. A detainee whose name we don't know; arrested on 22.7.10 and barred from meeting a lawyer

In the absence of the detainee, the usual dialogue [between the lawyer and the police investigator] was conducted:

- What is the charge?

- Membership in a hostile organisation

- Which organisation?

- Hamas.

- Military or civilian activity?

- Military activity.

- Did he link himself to the charges?

- Partially, yes.

- Was any combat materiel seized?

- No.

- Are other people involved in the case?

- I cannot provide details.

When the time came to bring in the detainee, we were asked to leave. We showed the judge the preliminary injunction of the High Court of Justice, recommending that we remain for the hearing. It didn't help, he read the document we gave him but he said it explicitly notes that our presence would not be permitted if the entities in the investigation object to it. (it also says, of course, that the judge is entitled to take into account the position of the investigation entities, but the final decision remains his. The document also stated that the court can order the proceedings to be held "in camera", a procedure that supersedes the instruction given us to leave the court. The judge, Shalom Dahan, like most judges who we've seen over the years in remand extensions, leaves the court management to the investigating entities, represented by the police investigator): "I don't intervene, it's their business".

4. Muhammad Mahmoud Algur, age 19.5, arrested on 14.7.10 and is being interrogated for 'activity against security in the region'.

It is his third remand extension.

Attorney: Fahmi Shkirat

The investigator asked for a remand extension of 8 days for the purposes of the investigation. Again, the whole rigmarole:

- Did you perform all investigative activities required to extend the previous remand?

- Most of them.

- Are there discrepancies between the two versions that he gave during the    investigation? 

- Yes in the second version he admitted, and elaborated his involvement in the activities attributed to him.

 - When were the offences committed? Are there specific dates?

And now things became interesting because the detainee, who this morning had met his attorney for the first time, told him that the actions for which he was interrogated took place four and a half years ago. Eighteen months ago he had committed an offence (we were not told which one), but it had nothing to do with the security of the region. The young man had undergone two polygraph tests during his detention and had not admitted anything.

After a discussion between the police investigator, the attorney and the judge the decision was given:

5 days remand extension.

5. Shadi Ahmed Muzaham; Arrested on 10.7.10. This is his fifth remand extension. The investigator requests a further extension of 12 days. The suspect is somehow connected to a shooting incident, and to other people. The investigator could, of course, not answer any question for reasons connected to the good of the investigation, but the attorney insisted and asked whether other people were connected to the incident and why they had been released. The investigator absolutely denied the whole matter.

At this point Attorney Ma'amoun Hashim intervened. So far, he had been sitting on the bench, joking with the security guards. Now he said: yes it's true. I represented one of the suspects in the affair, and he was released on bail.

After this there were some more of the usual references to the confidential report and the investigator who never knows anything. The attorney summed up: "The suspect denies any connection to the incident. I'm asking for his release or alternatively, to transfer the file on to the [Military] prosecution".

Decision: remand extension of 8 days.

6, Attorney Anwar Abu Lafi, represents Mahmoud Duani and managed to get permission to bring in his relatives, his wife and father. The accused, an accountant aged 41, is a resident of A-Tur, a neighbourhood in East Jerusalem. He speaks fluent Hebrew. He has six children and two grandchildren. He was arrested on 12.7.10 in the early morning, in his home. Since his arrest he has been interrogated daily from 6 am until 2 am the following day, with short pauses of 15 minutes. He is interrogated while fettered, and hunched over.

His interrogation centres on his ties with some guy (Ziad?). He repeats again and again, that he has no connection to this person.

It transpires that in 2004 he was detained and investigated then too for the same connection. It ended with his release. Douani says that that arrest was a warning signal for him, and since then he has avoided making any contact with that person or other persons (Ziad?).

The judge was mainly impressed by the conditions of the interrogation (20 hours a day). He examined the file and counted the hours of the interogation listed there, and the periods of rest noted. The judge noted that the file reports only half the time of the interrogation the detainee pointed out.

The attorney tries to explain the discrepancy: the detainee has no watch and cannot be accurate. The detainee corrects the attorney, and tells him (in Hebrew) that he indeed has no watch, but he sees the watch on the interrogator's wrist, and the records kept in the file are not true, "They simply don't write the truth".

Truth or not, in the judge's opinion the interrogation program must be performed in full, according to what is written in the confidential file.

The remand was extended by 8 days, to the following Thursday, 5.8.10.