Barred (from meeting with attorney)

Russian Compound

Judge: Shmuel Fleishman

Police interrogator: Moshe Levi

Lawyers:  Ma'amun Hashin and Abu Ahmed Munzer

Suspects:

Ahmed Razek Mahmud Issa, ID 85197732   

Muhammad Saleh Muhammad Bader, ID 852478940, prohibited from meeting a lawyer.

 The remand extension hearing of today exemplified again what it means for Palestinian civilians to be judged by a military Court. The former IDF military advocate General Avichai Mandelblit expressed recently his conviction that it was wrong that a military court should judge civilians. He, of course, referred to the settlers, while completely ignoring the fact that in the reality of the occupation, for years and years Palestinian civilians are being judged by military courts.

 An Israeli military judge can not be entirely neutral towards a Palestinian civilian, whom, in his capacity of an Israeli officer, he regards as belonging to a hostile population. The language of the court is Hebrew, which is not understood by the majority of the suspects, and the translation is done by a IDF soldier, who was trained briefly in court language, and whose competence is questionable. There are no relatives of the suspects in the court room who could give the suspects some reassurance, because the Russian Compound is located in the middle of Jerusalem, and Palestinians from the West Bank cannot get a permit to enter Jerusalem. 

 Suspect Bader was serving a 2 year sentence and was arrested from prison on 28.12.11 and charged with membership in an unlawful association. Since the morning of 9.1.12 he is prohibited by the General Secret Service from seeing his lawyer. He stands alone, without legal protection, in front of a hostile police investigator, while the judge who has insight into the confidential material attempts to separate the fighting sides: the police interrogator, who does not want to release information and the defence lawyer, who tries desperately, like a blind man, to find nevertheless his way and to detect some small pieces of information. The contest between them is conducted in high tones and loud voices and by and by the courtroom turns into a market place. The police asks for 15 days of remand extension. The judge agrees to 12 days.

 But also in the case of the suspect who is allowed to see his lawyer, a great deal of information of the interrogation is hidden in the files that contain confidential material, so that the defence lawyer has to feel his way through the labyrinth of the case of his client. The relevant information is usually to be found in the "secret file".  

Advocate Ma'amun Hashin exclaimed after an unsuccessful attempt to find out if his client was on hunger-strike: "my hands are bound like the hands of my client".

 Suspect Ahmed Issa was arrested on 5.12.11 and has, after 5 remand extensions and countless interrogations, not confessed. He is suspected of dealing with arms. The police cannot provide evidence, but asks for another 15 days of remand extension. The judge agreed to 12 days.

 The impression of the observer is that the Palestinians have no real chance in the military court to achieve justice. This impression is corroborated by findings of a Yesh Din report from 2007, that only 0.3% of the defendants were found to be entirely not guilty.

Translation: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound 

Judge: Avri Einhorn

Police Investigator: Omri……

 Attorneys: Ma’amoun Hashim, Firas Sabah, Fahmi Shkirat

                      There were 7 cases in the docket, in 6 of which of suspects banned from meeting an attorney.

Ibrahim Kada Muhammad Darawi – I.D. 852802671

Defence Attorney: Fahmi Shkirat

 Charge: Activity against regional security. The police requests another 15 days. A ping-pong of questions and answers took place between the defence attorney and the police representative. The police officer’s answer to all the questions asked was the usual: “I refer you to the confidential material”.

For example:

Q. “Is the detainee a member of a specific organization?”

A. “I can’t answer that.”

Q. “Has the suspect linked himself to military activity?”

A. “Can’t answer that.”

The defence attorney sought the court’s intervention, and the court instructed the investigator to “answer the defence attorney’s question”.

 A. “Partially”.

The defence attorney then asked “Partially yes, or partially no?”

Assisted by the judge, the investigator answered “Yes, partially”.

After the summing up, the investigator asked us to leave the court before the detainee was brought in for questioning, without the presence of an attorney and other people. We presented the recommendation of the preliminary injunction of the Supreme Court, asking judges to consider our remaining in the court for hearings, to grant a public character to the deliberations. Mr. Einhorn, the judge, read the recommendation attentively and pointed out that even the families were not present in the court. The investigator explained that not all the families have the option of entering Jerusalem. Since the preliminary injunction does not state specifically that the judge is obliged to keep us in court as “the eyes of the public”, he decided that he did not agree for us to remain. We asked for it to appear in the minutes that he refused to have us present in court.

 The judge’s decision: 15 additional days of remand.

Hassin Ali Hassan Kawasme – ID 933405375

The detainee is banned from meeting an attorney; this is the third request to extend his remand.

 The defence attorney: Ma’amoun Hashim

 Kawasme has been detained since 9.8.11.

The charge: Murder, in the Jerusalem central bus station.

 The police seek another 15 days remand.

In this case too, the defence attorney tried to obtain information about the need for a further extension, about the hours of investigation, and the health of the suspect. The answers were identical. The defence attorney’s persistence irritated the judge.

In his summing-up, Ma’amoun Hashim stated his surprise that the GSS  published in its press release that “a a terror unit had been captured", incuding information withheld from the suspect’s defence attorney. On one hand, there is a gag order, yet on the other hand confidential material is published in the press.

After the defence attorney finished presenting his summation, we were asked to leave. The judge informed us that a note concerning his refusal for us to be present in the part of the questioning of the detainee at which the defence attorney is not present, would appear in the minutes.

We left the Russian Compound. It has been two months since we were last in this court… and absolutely nothing has changed. 

Translation: Marganit W.

Summed up briefly: there was no trial.

Judge: Etty Adar

Prosecutor: Michael Avitan

Defense: Labib Habib – NOT PRESENT

We came to watch the trial of Bassam Tamimi from Nabi Salah who is accused of organizing demonstrations in his village against the separation fence. At the entrance, Yonatan Polack informed us that Atty. Habib could not show up because his car broke down. Bassam, however, was going to be in court. Bassam’s wife, Nariman and his aunt were present, as well as a group of Anarchist Against the Fence, who has been following this trial all along, and a few foreign diplomats. According to the draconic – and racist – rules that obtain in this court, a group of 10 people may attend the trial, but they must be Jewish or foreign; of the defendant’s family only 2 persons may attend. So this was the composition of the court today, plus a GSS investigator sitting next to the prosecutor.

There was no hearing, of course; it was set for next Sunday, 11.9.11.

4 witnesses will testify, all of them members of Tamimi’s family. Bassam’s wife told us that he has already been detained for about 6 months and during this period she has visited him only once. She has a permit to come one more time. And then? Either he’ll be released or she will have to apply for another permit.

Next to the gate we saw an Al-Jazeera van. They came to cover the trial of Samer Allawi.

For details see

-text in Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/al-jazeera-journalist-detained-in-israel-last-week-1.378986(Engl.)

- text in The 7th Eye http://www.the7eye.org.il/articles/Pages/050911_Natural_connection_to_any_journalist.aspx (Hebr.)

The photographer stood outside with his camera, in an open, exposed area where hundreds of Palestinians, to their chagrin, gather every day. Perhaps he was taking pictures and maybe he just wanted taking pictures; but the sight of the camera immediately brought out the soldier, who normally sits behind a dark glass window. He quickly crossed four electric doors and the turnstile, demanding that the photographer put away his camera; he took the latter’s ID card and went to get instructions.

Allawi’s family was standing outside the gate and was not allowed to enter because of the incident with the photographer, who had nothing whatsoever to do with them, but since they all came to see the same person, military logic dictates that they should not be admitted.

When we came out of the compound we realized that the Al Jazeera crew had not been allowed in because they had not coordinated their visit with the army spokesman, but Alawi’s attorney, Salim Wakim, was being interview by the crew. It turns out that Allawi himself did not show up in court because for a week now he has been barred from meeting with his attorney; he had been interrogated under threats and was told that if he did not cooperate, he would be put under administrative detention.

So what did we have today? One non-hearing re Bassam Tamimi, to which the defense attorney did not show up, and another non-hearing, in which the defendant, Allawi, did not appear. 

Translation: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound

Judge: Shmuel Fleischmann

Police Investigator:  Fares Jabar

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

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

Farras Nasser Sabti Barghouti, I.D. 904010264

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example:

Question: Activity against regional security, clarify what activity.

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

Question: What does he admit to?

Answer: Membership and activity.

Question: Does he admit?

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

Question: What do you intend to do next?

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

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

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

The judge’s summation:

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

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

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

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

Sam Odeh Rantissi, ID 978392371

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

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

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

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

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

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

Translation: Marganit W.

Russian  Compound

Judge: Shmuel Fleischmann

Police Investigator: Bashir Amar

Defense: Leah Tzemel, Maamoun Hashim, Iyad Misk

There are 3 cases in the docket. All the detainees are barred from meeting with an attorney.

We were given to understand that the three cases were based on mutual incriminations.

Faras Nasser Subati Bargouti – ID No. 90401061, represented by Atty. Maamoun Hashim.

Raed Samir Habib Halabi, ID No. 039528419, represented by Atty. Iyad Misak

Nasser Adin Subati Isa Abu Hadir – ID No. 080010424, represented by Atty. Leah Tzemel.

We attended part of the discussion between Abu Hadir’s attorney and the police investigator.

The investigator requested remand extension for 15 days to complete the investigation.

Atty. Leah Tzemel explained the status and the position of the detainee: he was arrested on 15.4.11 and was kept in detention for about a month. On 13.5.11 his status was changed to administrative detention. Right before his release from administrative detention he was taken to the Russian Compound for interrogation under pretext of a security violation – membership in the Popular Front [for the Liberation of Palestine] and activity against the security of the state.

The defense wanted to know if the interrogator is familiar with the case and knows why the defendant is in detention. She received the standard answer: “It is all included in the secret file”. Unsatisfied with this reply Atty. Tzemel pressed the interrogator to say “Yes or No or I cannot answer”.

Leah Tzemel: You agree that not everything in the secret file is secret. It is no secret why he was interrogated. I represented him. I intend to show that the investigator was not truthful… I wish to expose the clause….

The investigator continued to refer to the “secret file”. The defense appealed to the judge: the investigator is under cross-examination and is obliged to answer, unless he can prove that his answer will damage the investigation. The judge, however, thought otherwise: he sided with the investigator, adding to the protocol phrases that, according to the defense, were not said by the investigator.

Atty. Tzemel tried to show that the police investigator is not familiar with the defendant’s previous investigation. For example, he does not know that the suspect was tested by polygraph and was found to be telling the truth when he said that he did not participate in military activity with others.

Another aspect that came up in the cross-examination was the interrogators’ authority: what authority does a police interrogator from Judea-Samaria have over a Jerusalem resident who lives in Jerusalem?

The answer is: there is an arrest order, which provides legal authorization for an interrogation of a suspect when the violations are believed to have been committed in Jerusalem.

At one point the judge asked the investigator to elaborate, but to no avail.

Atty. Tzemel stated that the GSS has no basis for the charges, so the case is trumped up.

She asked the investigator if it is possible that the case is made up. A shocked investigator immediately responded: The GSS is a principled and conscientious organization: it does not engage in such behavior.

In summation, the defense reiterated its doubt about AUTHORITY, which is a basic question in this case. She claimed that a military court has no authority to detain and interrogate her client based on rules that apply to residents of the Territories. Even the GSS legal counsel cannot claim otherwise.

Another fault she found in the case: Since the GSS realizes that remand extension is hard to obtain, it based its charges on incriminations tied to other violations, and it is not clear if any of the incriminators was set on…

Leah Tzemel moved to declare that the court has no authority in this case. If this is denied, she requests a limited number of hours or days for the investigation.

Judge’s decision: Having heard the suspect and the defense, and having examined the evidence in the file, he accepts the investigator’s request of 15 days remand extension.

Translation: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound

Judge: Col. Shalom Dahan

Police investigator: Nissim Argaman

Defence Attorney: Maamoun Hashim, Fahmi Shkirat

There were 3 cases in the docket today; one of them was barred from meeting an attorney.

On 21.3.11 we were present at the remand extension of three detainees – two residents of Awarta, and the other a resident of A-Ram.

The remand of two of them were extended by an additional 8 days, for further investigations. The third received a four-day extension (Abed al Rachman Yassin Nasser Jabali ID 850822818). They appealed that extension. The defence attorney, Maamoun Hashim, did not know what decision had been made about the appeal, because the files of the two detainees from Awarta had been transferred to the court in the North.

The third detainee,Aassem Mussa Ibrahim Mansour, ID 904381902, appeared in court today as barred from meeting with his attorney, Maamoun Hashim.

The two other detainees whose cases were heard:

Ala'a Bassem Jodath Adwan, ID 8517 3930

Muhammad Raef Orkhian Alhir, ID 854579166

The two are accused of activity against regional security.The charges against Mansour (the barred detainee) were not discussed at this session, but at the previous session he too was accused of the above charge.

Regarding Muhammad Alhir, the police requested 8 more days to investigate.  After ascertaining the age of the suspect, who is a resident of Surif, aged 17 and 10 months, the judge said that he considers him a minor, and he granted only 4 more days to complete the investigation.

15 more days were sought for the second detainee, a resident of Al Azzariya. The judge first asked the investigator if an alternative to detention could be considered; he received a firm answer about the detainee’s dangerous nature, and then granted 11 more days. The conversation between the suspect and the defence attorney made it clear to the latter that the charge is “firing shots at a wedding”.

I will not elaborate about the barren discussion regarding the defence attorney’s questions and the investigator’s replies – which were all identical: either “It’s in the confidential report”, or  “I am unable to answer”, or else he cited the clause or sub-clause in which the grounds are given. The defence attorneys learned nothing from their questioning  the police investigator.

Banned from meeting an attorney: Aassam Mussa Ibrahim Mansour:

After Defence Attorney Hashim asked his questions, and Roni and I were asked to leave the courtroom so that the suspect could be brought in for questioning by the court, we showed the judge the preliminary injunction of the Supreme Court (which recommends permitting civilians to observe the proceedings – for the sake of holding public hearings). The judge said that he does not care to interfere - he asks the investigator, and respects his opinion.

Translation: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound

Judge: Asher Barak

Police investigator: Nissim Argaman

Defence Attorney: Maamoun Hashim, Firas Sabbah, Fahmi Shkirat

There were 7 cases of remand extension in the docket today.

We were present at the hearings of 3 of them, all of detainees barred from meeting with an attorney.

Two are from Awwarta [near the Itamar colony]. Their files were transferred here from the Petah Tikva Court.

All three cases (which we attended) were represented by Attorney Mamoun Hashim.

The two detainees from Awwarta were not represented by a lawyer, and the third - from Ar-Ram - was represented by an attorney who had requested a substitute. He is from Beersheva and was apparently appearing in another court.

Judge Barak refused to allow our presence during the stage of the hearing in which a barred [from meeting an attorney] detainee  appears.

Rais Jarrah Maruah Abdat, ID 850001033 - a resident of Awwarta [near the Jewish colony Itamar]

He was arrested on 16.3.11. This is his first remand extension. He was born in 1988.

The police investigator requests another 15 days to continue the investigation. The detainee has already given two police statements.

The defence attorney asks several questions. The investigator did not reply and only said "I refer you to the confidential report" when asked about the kind of suspicion his client was suspected of – did the suspect admit his guilt - and the evident question: is this connected to the murders committed in the Itamar colony, where 5 members of a family were murdered, children and adults. The defence attorney wanted to understand why the case had been transferred from Petah Tikva to Jerusalem, and whether the suspect had complained about the use of unlawful means used during his interrogation.

To all of these he answered “It’s in the confidential file”.

To sum up: the police does not waver from its request (15 days extension), and the defence objects to the extension because there are no grounds.

Judge Barak asked to see where the report states what the detainee is suspected of, and what is the grave suspicion mentioned by the investigator. The judge then argued that the evidence shown him had not helped him to understand if there is any point in a 15-day extension. He gathers that the investigative agents can complete their work in a shorter period - 8 days.

Abed El Rachman Yassin Nasser Jabali, I.D. 805822818 –

resident of Awarta

Arrested on 13.3.11.

The police requested 15 more days.

Maamoun Hashim asked if the detainee is suspected of the same charges attributed to the previous detainees.

The answer: “it’s in the confidential report with the judge". The suspicions against them are “actions against regional security". The investigator noted that the charges date from recent weeks.

The judge looked in the file and asked the investigator for explanations: why do they need 15 days for the investigation? Why was he arrested? What are the suspicions against him?

The investigator replied that matters would become clear in the course of the investigation; the whole point of the investigation is to elicit the truth...

The judge's decision: after examining the reports and the clarifications, he has reached the conclusion that no more than 4 days are necessary to conclude the investigation of the suspect.

Assem Mussa Ibrahim Mansour, I.D. 9043 81802 – resident of Ar-Ram.

Arrested on 16.3.11.

Mamoun Hashim is representing him on behalf of the attorney from Beersheba, who is absent.

The police asked for an extension of 15 more days.

He is suspected of activity against regional security.

From the questions, the defence attorney concluded that it is a criminal offence - trade in combat materiel. The detainee has a criminal past.

The investigator’s response: “it’s in the confidential report. I cannot say more than what I said”.

The judge’s decision: Additional 8 days of remand extension. 

 Translation: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound

Judge: Shmuel Fleishman

Police investigator: Bashir Amar

Defence Attorney: Fahmi Shkirat

There were two cases in the docket.

Firas Akal Muztafa Dar. I.D. 949794234

Since no woman police officer was available to perform a physical check on us (a prerequisite for entering), we entered the courtroom after discussions had begun. The defence attorney was apparently trying to prove that there is no reason to extend the suspect’s detention, because he does not admit to any of the charges attributed to him.

From the judge’s summary we understood that there is a problem with a document that the investigators did not place in the file, and this is hampering him from making a final decision. Investigator Nissim Argaman entered then exited, to clarify the matter.

Meanwhile the judge started to dictate his decision:

The suspect was arrested under administrative detention on 21.1.11. Since 8.2.11 he has been held in regular detention conditions. Today they discussed the fourth remand extension. During part his detention, the detainee was barred from meeting an attorney.

The file contains confidential reports from previous remand extensions. This is where the problem cropped up: the suspect’s file contains no document concerning his being barred from meeting an attorney, or about the removal of the prevention. It is not clear if the prevention was removed yesterday, or the day before yesterday.

Judge Fleishman added that the suspect linked himself in his statement to offences that, though they are relatively old, are liable to harm regional security. The police representative argued that a grave offence is attributed to the suspect, and it must beinvestigated.

At this point the discussion was halted so that the head of the investigation team could explain to the judge ex parte the confusion created due to the missing document (I must note that we failed to understand the problem).

The head of the team spent some time in a discussion with the judge and with investigators Nissim Argaman and Amar.  We observers stood outside, with the defence attorney, the detainee and four policemen fromthe Nachshon unit who were guarding the detainee.

We heard that the detainee is fromTzurif village, and that he is suspected of ‘connections with weapons’.

The head of the team came out, and we all went back into the courtroom.

From the conversation between the defence attorney and the judge, before the team-head came in, it seemed to us that the judge actually intended to release the detainee, but the intention was foiled following the judge’s conversation with the head of the investigation team.

The judge explained to the defence attorney that an injunction prohibiting a meeting [with an attorney] was in force until 5.3.11, and that the defence attorney had not been told that it was removed. (The defence attorney noted that such a notification would not have helped him, because the detainee was held in an area to which the defence attorney has no permit to enter). The injunction was issued on 3.3.11 and expired on 5.3.11. The judge instructed that the minutes show that he requests a written explanation why there had been no notification regarding the removal of the injunction. He also requested a copy of the letter explaining the absence of the document concerning the removal of the injunction, so he could examine it.

The judge added a further 8 days remand for investigation purposes, noting that progress had been made in the detainee's investigation. Progress was slow, but existed.

Az-addin Abdelaziz Hassin Hamidat, I.D. 913978359

(see previous reportdated 21.2.11 re this case)

Agreement was reached to transfer the case to the prosecution on Sunday. The judge asked whether the detainee has any medical problems, and the detainee replied that yes, he suffers from headaches and has kidney problems. Yes, he had seen a doctor who gave him medication: yes, Acamol [Paracetamol!!!].

The judge asked to record in the minutes his request that the doctor check the detainee concerning his complaint about kidney problems.

Translation: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound

Judge: Meir  Lachan

Police investigator: Nissim Argaman

Defence Attorneys: Odeh, Maamoun Hashim, Fahmi Shkirat

Three cases in the docket.

The case of Az-Addin Abed Al Aziz Hassin, I.D. 913978359, who is barred from meeting an attorney, has been transferred to Ashkelon (see previous report).

Hamza Ibrahim Mussa Zaharan, I.D. 942313693

Defence: Attorney Odeh

The police investigator requested 7 additional days of remand in custody to conclude the case. The judge understood that the parties had reached an agreement, but Atty Odeh announced explicitly that he does not consent to a remand extension in order to conclude the investigation. He did agree, though, to that number of days, if they are needed to transfer the file to the prosecution.

The judge explained to the defence that concluding the case means collecting all the material – that is, “organizing the case”.

The defence claimed that the detainee denies all charges against him.

Files of people who were involved in that accusation have already been transferred to the prosecution.

The detainee has been going through of a very harsh interrogation period of close to 50 days. He maintains that his investigators applied illegal means, and that for 40 days he was barred from meeting an attorney. He was deprived of sleep, interrogated day and night for long hours, and psychological pressure and threats were used against him – that if he didn’t sign, his relatives would be arrested. Most recently, he was tied to his bed for a day and a half, on the claim that he wanted to commit suicide (a punishment given him because he refused food). He was in isolation throughout the entire period of his detention.

The judge interrupted the defence’s speech and asked: “And why are your telling me all this?” (!)

The attorney ended by saying that the police could by now have concluded the investigation proceedings.

The judge decided that the police are asking for a reasonable time, bearing in mind the confidential material in the file, including a document dated 27.2.11.

“I am now assured” said the judge, “regarding the period that the police is requesting. These are, in fact, only 4 working days” (because of Friday and Saturday).

In Justice Lachan’s summation, he did not refer to the defence’s claim that the interrogation team used illegal measures, and made no attempt to check if the claim was true or not.

Hassan Hassnin Hassan Shuka, I.D. 9361222621

Defence Attorney Maamoun Hashim: the police are asking for another 15 days for the investigation. He tried to extract information so as to understand what period of the charge – ‘activity against security in the region’ – was being referred to.

According to the investigator, it is hard to state the exact time, but it seems that the charge against the suspect relates to a period when he was under administrative detention [???]. Which means that the detainee was brought for investigation on 16.2.11 from his detention cell, where he was apparently being held for other offences. Time and again, investigator Nissim said that he cannot answer the attorney’s questions, because the information is confidential.

The defence attorney summed up: he sees no reason to continue investigating the detainee, because there are no grounds for his arrest.

But the judge argued that the confidential reports were before him, and hoped that the investigation team would work energetically to advance the investigation. He was under the impression that they are they are doing their utmost to shorten the investigation. Therefore he consents to add 12 more days of interrogation.

Firas Akel Mustafa Dar Alhaj, I.D. 949794234

Defence: Atty Fahmi Shkirat

The police request another 8 days for the investigation.

Defence: the suspect has given his version to the police, and linked himself to the suspicions against him, namely, planning to ‘trade with combat materiel’, but not to the charge of ‘membership [in an illegal organization]’. Why is there any need for additional interrogations?

The investigator sums up: the charge is “activity against security in the region”.

The defence attorney does not agree to the remand extension – the third one.The police had plenty of time to conclude the investigation. Moreover, the accused has admitted his connection to the “planning” charge.

The judge sums up by saying that in view of the confidential material,  the additional days requested are justified.

Translation: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound

Judge: Lior Kahana

Police investigator: Bashir ...? (he refused to give his surname)

 Defence attorneys: Fahmi Shkirat, Firas Sabbah, Maamoun Hashim

There are 7 cases in the docket. One is the case of a person barred from meeting with an attorney, and in four cases agreement has been reached between the parties.

Yussuf Hassan Ismail Issa, ID 939641924

Arrested on 31.1.11

Defence: Firas Sabbah

 Three of the detainee's relatives are brought to court for remand extension (the father Omar, the son Abdullah, and the uncle Yussuf)

They are accused of contacts with the enemy.

The parties have agreed to extend remand by another two days, and to the transfer of the case to the prosecution.

Ali Kassem Ismail Kabaja, I.D. 852729193

Defence: Atty. Firas Sabbah on behalf of Atty. Maamoun Hashim

 Agreement has been reached between the parties for extension of remand by 7 days, and the transfer of the case to the prosecution.

The detainee is suspected of membership in Hamas. He is a student.

 An hour later a sheet of paper from theGSS was given to the judge.

The suspect was brought back from his cell.

The judge read the appeal by the GSS about the agreement, and their request for a further 12 days investigation.

The judge explains that this is not acceptable procedure. "The ink has not dried yet on the decision for agreement“ wrote the judge, "yet the GSS is already making another request. This does not accord with appropriate procedure".

 The judge recommends to the GSS that they make efforts in the time given them to continue the investigation, and if it is still not sufficient, they may file a repeat application, showing grounds.

Az'adine Abdal-Aziz Hassin Hamiadat, I.D. 913978359

 The suspect has been barred from meeting an attorney since 28.1.11, the day of his arrest. He is a resident of Kfar Surif.

He is suspected of activity against the security in the region.

 Judge Kahana does not agree with our being present in court during all stages of the hearing; that is, he goes along with our presence when the defence tries to question and understand the charges and the status of his client’s investigation. But when the detainee is brought in, he requires us and the defence attorney to leave the courtroom. He reads the preliminary injunction of the High Court that we give him, recommending to allow us to remain at all stages of the proceedings - for the sake of public hearing - but he says he doesn't agree with the recommendation, and that we are obliged to leave. We ask for our request to be recorded in the minutes.

 The police asks for additional 18 days of investigation. If the judge agrees to this request, the detainee will have been prevented from meeting an attorney for over 40 days. (We and the defence attorneys leave the courtroom, and the judge asks for time to consider his decision - so we don't know if he agreed to the request of the police or not).

The discussion between the defence and the police investigator is completely pointless. The investigator keeps referring the attorney to the confidential report, instead of answering his questions. Nothing could be learned about the status of the investigation or its content.

All we heard was that the suspect had given a police statement.

Abdullah Omar Hassan Issa, I.D. 853816312

This is the young man from the Issa family, that we mentioned above. The police requests another 8 days of remand for the investigation.

 The judge reads the file, and keeps repeating: "this is nonsense, utter nonsense".

We were happy to hear that and thought that the judge’s words would influence his decision, but this was not the case: he agreed to extend remand by 5 days, that is until 25.2.11 - which is a Friday. Would they convene the court at the end of the remand extension of Abdullah (and of his father) on a Friday? Almost certainly not. On Sunday? Maybe in the Military Court in Ofer? Next Monday? We'll see.

Omar Hassan Ismail Issa, I.D. 907097224

 Atty. Firas Sabbah is representing him, as well as his son.

The police asks for 8 days - and in this case too, all the actors play their parts perfectly. The judge grants 5 days, the investigator respects this decision, and the defence says: I too agree.