Membership/activity in unauthorized association

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: Marganit W.

More restrictions at the entrance to the court? - "It's not my decision: these are our instructions..." said the soldier as she rummaged in my pocket. She found a tissue and threw it in the trashcan.

For a long moment I felt as if I was fumbling in the dark: we no longer receive protocols of the hearings, and today even the copies of the dockets that we usually find at the entrance to the courtrooms were nowhere to be found. Thus, I had to feel my way in the dark, piecing together the details.

Trial No. 1 (no names of defendant, prosecutor, attorney or judge; no charge either).

The attorney stated that the defendant's family was unable to ransom their son as they lack the means. The families of three other detainees paid for their release, only his client stayed in jail. Hence, he asks for a reduced sum.

Prosecutor: Due to the severity of the offense [unknown to me], no mitigation is warranted.

The judge states that the fine has already been reduced twice (from 7000 shekels to 4000 then to 2550). "The fine is for the benefit of the public, not the defendant." Thus, the sum remains unchanged.

Defense: But nobody can pay this sum on his behalf...

Judge: He can appeal.

I took a break and went out. In the fenced yard I met Issa Salibi from Beit Ommar, a friend of Haya Ofek. He is an elderly man who comes here often because two of his sons are in jail awaiting trial, "because they oppose the occupation." The younger of the two (21)  is charged with throwing rocks, and the other (25) is charged with "an attempt to blow up the tower at the entrance to the village."

It takes the father two hours to reach Ofer and costs him 65 shekels, "but never mind the time or the money. It's the humiliation..." Issa further told me about the daily incursions of the army into Beit Ommar. "Today they arrested 4 villagers."

Trial No. 2

Defendant: Raid Mahmud Hamzi Badawi Hanini, ID 901139972, from Hebron, 35 years old.

Charge: membership and activity in an unlawful association up to the day of arrest.

Defense: Atty. Shaaban

Judge: Captain Oren Boaz

Two witnesses for the prosecution incriminated the defendant.

The prosecutor claims that the organization in question is affiliated with Hamas.

Defense: Neither witness claims that the defendant took part in Hamas activities only that he taught the Koran. The second witness testified that the defendant works at the Hebron Culture ministry, at the Sufi organization.

The defense further states: The defendant had taught children the Koran for many years. About 3-4 years ago Israel asked the PA to oversee the associations, so now the PA inspects them. He teaches small children the Koran. This is not against the law... He is 35 years old, has no criminal record. Had he wanted to make trouble, he would have done it in the First Intifada...

-The statements were taken in February 2010, why was he arrested only in June? Why did the security forces take their time?

-I see that the defendant is not a security risk; there is discrimination between him and other defendants who were released. I move to release him on bail."

Prosecutor: There is new information that the organization is a branch of Hamas...

Defense: You cannot adduce new allegations. My colleague is inventing things. His claim has no leg to stand on...

Judge's Decision:

"I am convinced that his activity was focused on religion and there is no proof he did anything that might endanger security in the region, even though there is basis for unlawful activity. I order him released with the following restrictions:

1. Deposition of 10.000 shekels in cash.

2. Third party guarantee of 5000 shekels.

3. He has to report to the nearest police station every Sunday before 11 AM.

The prosecution requests a 72-hour delay to consider an appeal.

Judge's Decision: Raid's release is delayed until Sunday at 11.45 AM.

Trial No. 3

Defendant: Ahmed Hamdan, resident of Bethlehem.

Charged with conspiracy to commit a crime.

Defense: Atty. Lubani

Judge: Captain Oren Boaz

The judge rejects the defense's request for an alternative to detention with the following explanation: "I examined the evidence which is based on the defendant's admission and on the statement by an incriminating witness, and I find that they warrant detention."

Hearing is set for the first Tuesday when arraignments are presented to Justice Fleishman.

On the way out of this big cattle pen I was stopped by some young men who asked,

-Who are you?

-What are you writing all the time?

-What do you do with the material?

-Who is it sent to?

-Can anyone help?

One of them offered to work with me. I explained that this is not a paying job, he wondered: So you're not paid by the government?

Translation: Marganit W.

New restrictions have recently been added for visitors to Ofer: bags, wallets, keys, food, drink etc. - all except medication, pens and notebooks - are now strictly forbidden. We were told that a month ago a visitor was caught smuggling a dangerous object inside a loaf of bread. Nobody could tell us what the object was. One person "sinned" and the entire community has to pay. In modern parlance, this is collective
punishment.

Another Biblical precept also used for the Gaza Strip.

The brutality and horror of "Probation"

This is a particularly harsh measure, which we often encounter in the courts. Detainees forced to a plea bargain tend to focus on the threat of immediate imprisonment, often ignoring the strictures of the probation clause imposed on them. They don't realize that after their release, chances are that the reality of the occupation will bring another incrimination and detention upon them, as often happens, and then the probation will go into effect automatically. There are three components to probation: its length, the period of time it covers and the offenses that will put it into effect. We have witnessed trials where the judges were obviously uncomfortable - facing the defendant and the family - when they added probation to the punishment.

Military Court of Appeals - Appeal of Probation
President: Colonel Aharon Mishnayot
Appellant: Aadel Naaman Salim Aljanidi, ID 989439252
Defense: Atty. Ahmad Saffiya
Prosecutor: Captain Michael Avitan

The appellant, who has been released in the meantime, is a respectable sheik from Hebron. The charges are: membership and activity in an unlawful organization.

Atty. Saffiya appealed the principle of enforcing probation. The court tends to see every security offense as a probation violation. Thus, most Palestinians who are tried for a second time are automatically in violation. Before the hearing, the prosecution tried to reach a compromise with the defense. The judge then declared that the 'appeal is granted'. The time component of the probation was reduced by half (from 20 months for 3 years to 10 months for 18 month.)
And more importantly - for the defense and for the appellant - it was decided that "the condition is that the appellant does not commit the violation for which he was convicted in this case."

Judge: Major Sharon Rivlin-Ahai
Prosecutor: Captain Yael Cohen-Vagon
Defense: Atty. Mahmud Hassan
Defendant: Ubai Fahmi Alabudi,  ID 950447961 -  Case No. 1913/10
Charge: Holding a position, membership and activity in the Popular Front.

We met Ubai's parents before the hearing. They are Greek-Orthodox. The father claims that his family's roots go back to the 11th century. This is the first time we encounter a Christian detainee. The father is a professor of linguistics at Bir-Zeit University, where his son studies economics. Since he is an American citizen, a consulate representative visits him twice a month. Ubai served a three and half year prison sentence between 2005 and 2008. His father claims that he was incriminated by two people, and ended up, as usual, cutting a plea bargain.

On 16.3.10 dozens of soldiers broke into their house at dawn [ this is in Ramallah, which is in Zone A] kidnapping Ubai and terrorizing the entire household. As usual, it was a result of incrimination. Only today was an indictment presented; Ubai denies the allegations. The father says that this time they intend to stand their ground and refuse a plea bargain, because there is a two and a half year prison sentence, resulting from the probation of the earlier plea bargain which they now regret.

The evidentiary hearing is set for 28.6.10.

The father estimates that every Palestinian family these days has at least one member in detention, under interrogation or in jail.

Traffic violation case in the Military Courts of Appeals

Judge: Colonel Shlomi Kokhav
Appellant: Jodi Mustafa Qawassme, ID 920183332 - Case No. 1745/10
Defense: Atty. Fadi Qwassme
Police Prosecutor: Gaby Romi

Jodi, 53 years old, handcuffed and shackled, is wearing orange prison uniform with two bright reflective strips cutting across his chest and ankles - perhaps to protect him from passing cars when he goes out jogging at night?  His attorney says that the Prison Authorities changed the brown uniform to orange, but the "security" prisoners refuse to wear the new garb. To us, the man in orange and bright strips looks like a Gitmo prisoner.

Sign of the absurdity of the occupation: a traffic violator is tried in a military court, where the presiding judge is an officer in uniform.
The man is a Hebron resident, owner and driver of a taxicab, caught by the Israeli police driving with a suspended license on the road from Bethlehem to Hebron. He got a ticket and was sent on his way. A few days later, while at the police station on a licensing matter, he was arrested and incarcerated.
The defense pleaded for leniency arguing that the 5000 shekel fine is unconscionable (given that an average salary is less than 1000), and thus cannot be paid.
The prosecutor, on the other hand, wanted a heavy fine for deterrence.
"Because if the man is released and the facts are known in Hebron, people there will trample the law blatantly."
He talks of Hebron as if it were synonymous with the "rule of law", as if Palestinian inhabitants, Jewish settlers, Kiryat Arba residents, Beit Hadassah, Tel Rumeida, the 'Contested House', Abraham the Patriarch neighborhood - all sainted, law-abiding citizens who revere the letter of the law. For further emphasis, he cited an accident that occurred a week ago in the north of Israel where two pedestrians died because of a driver whose license had been suspended, and another accident in the south.

The judge called the attorneys to his chamber. They reached an agreement whereby the sentence was reduced to 30 days and the penalty to 2500 shekels. The suspension and the probation remained in force. When everyone returned to the court to hear the sentencing, the defendant's hands and feet were free of the shackles. Was he no longer dangerous, or is the Prison Authority becoming lax and forgetful?

morning + afternoon
 

The newly built, "improved" entrance to the military court is extremely depressing; it is evidence to the fact that the occupation aspires to a very long life.

Room Nr.3, Court of Appeals

Judge: Lieut.-Col. Netanel Benishu

Prosecution: Major Oren Lieber

Defence attorney: Mahmud Hassan

Defendant: Saed Suhir Jamil Alkhamamrah - file nr. 3426/09,

ID 852046929

Appeal of the prosecution to the Military Court of Appeals against the decision of the previous court's decision to acquit Saed.

Saed was arrested in his house in the village Hussan in the middle of the night on 17.02.09. The indictment was issued on the 24.02.09 and he was charged with "membership and activity in an unlawful association", the "Popular Front", with participating in a procession of the organisation and with writing slogans for the organisation.

After almost 9 months of hearings and examining witnesses, the court reached a decision to acquit the defendant and give him the benefit of the doubt. This happened on 5.11.09. The prosecution immediately appealed to the Military Court of Appeals against the discharge and demanded to keep Saed under arrest until the verdict of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals overruled the petition and released Saed on bail of 10.000 NIS on  11.11.09. on condition that he will not leave his village until the Court of Appeals hands down its ruling.

Today, 16.02.10, the petition of the prosecution to the Court of Appeals against the acquittal of Saed was heard. One of the arguments of the previous court in favor of the decision to acquit the defendant was seen in the failure of the investigation to confront the incriminator with the defendant. The prosecution argued that this failure could have been corrected in the course of the hearings. Another argument of the prosecution was that judge Hilit Bar-On-Biber was not completely convinced that Saed has spoken the truth, but gave him the benefit of the doubt.

The demand of the prosecution was that Saed should confess to the charges of the indictment, namely membership and activity in an unlawful association. Under these circumstances it wouldl agree that his sentence will be commuted to time served in detention, but it nevertheless insisted that Saed should be released on probation.  

The defence attorney admitted that the core of the problem lies in the credibility of the defendant. He reminded the court that Saed is supposed to donate one of his kidneys to his sister, who will have to have a kidney transplant, which will be performed in Israel. Release on probation will prevent Saed to receive an entry permit from the Civil Administration.

Justice Benishu accepted the arguments of the prosecution and suggested that the 2 sides consider the "options" and return to the courtroom after the lunchbreak.

Saed was quite desparate. Right from the beginning, he refused to confess to having been a member of the Popular Front. But if he wanted to stay out of prison, he would have to "confess" now. Release on probation was another problematic issue, because he would then be refused an entry permit to Israel. The interrogations and prison life did not break him. But the idea to return to prison was, of course, extremely threatening. He decided to accept the "offer".

That's how the military court system outplays the Palestinian prisoners and receives the desired statistical data, namely almost 100% "guilty" Palestinians. 

In the afternoon the verdict was given. The defendant was declared guilty of the charges of "membership and activity in an unlawful association" and serving this association in writing slogans and participating in processions.

The sentence :

1. the prison term is commuted to the time already served in detention,     8 months and 23 days.

2. 6 months on probation for 2 years

3. a fine of 5000 NIS

Translation: Marganit W.

Justices: A. Procaccia (Chief Justice), A. Hayout, Y. Danziger

Defense: Attys. Elias Khoury and Ilan Katz

We attended the hearing of an appeal filed on behalf of Ghazi Kasem Issa, a moneychanger from Ramallah, who petitions to reclaim five million shekels that the army confiscated in September 2006 during a raid on the offices of the Ajuli Company owned by him.

Like many other Ramallah merchants who had money and property seized during that raid, Ghazi Issa has been negotiating for the return of the seized money. But unlike others, he refused to forfeit part of the sum. He appealed to the High Court of Justice against the commander of the region, demanding the return of all the money taken by the army during the raid. On 9.3.07, almost 6 months after his money was seized, and one day before the date set for the state to respond to the appeal, he was arrested on charges of providing services to a terror organization. The allegations were based on working relations the appellant had with the Charity Committee in Ramallah. His trial at Ofer Military Court lasted a year. He was incarcerated for that entire period and all motions to release him on bail were denied.

In March 2008 he was acquitted of all charges and released. The Military Prosecution appealed the decision and the court retracted the acquittal and convicted him. His defense filed an appeal with the High Court of Justice and this was the hearing we attended.

Together with the above procedure, the hearing included an appeal of the administrative procedure regarding the forfeiture of Mr. Issa's money, which is only allegedly

unrelated to the charges that led to his conviction in the military court.

The appellant himself was not present in court, nor had he attended earlier hearings of his HCJ appeals. The defense described the means by which the prosecution prevented him from attending the hearing: in essence, they deliberately heaped hardships and trumped-up requirements, citing "endangerment" (on one occasion they demanded escort of a security company; today they mandated that his attorney obtain an exit permit for his client from the civil administration to leave Zone A and that he drive the appellant in his own car to the High Court in Jerusalem). Even the Chief Justice acknowledged that those restrictions amounted to harassment of the appellant and his attorney.

The defense based its appeal on the claim that it was Mr. Issa's refusal to forfeit his money - which he called extortion by the authority - that led to his arrest in the first place and to his lengthy incarceration ‘until the conclusion of the proceedings'. It was his adamant stand that prompted the Military Court of Appeals to annul his acquittal and convict him. The defense cited an agreement between the prosecution and the defense reached during the trial two years ago, an agreement later ignored by the prosecution. The attorney further questioned the section of the "Defense (Emergency) Regulations" that was the base of the forfeiture. According to the defense, following the acquittal - which the prosecution objected to - the authorities confiscated the appellant's money, in addition to the funds of the Charity Committee. The defense explained the status of the Charity Committee in Ramallah - whose members are appointed by the Palestinian Authority - vehemently rejecting the allegation that it is a terror organization, adding that a proclamation declaring the Committee illegal had never been published in "Rashumot" [official journal of legislative and administrative actions] nor given to the members of the committee or to the many donors who contribute to the charitable organization.

Atty. Segal, arguing for the State, stated that the war against terror was at the background of this case. Again and again he reiterated that the appellant is a senior officer of Hamas (even though there was absolutely no reference to such a claim during Mr. Issa's trial). He pointed out that in the confidential material supplied by the GSS, the justices would find the explanation that would enable them to decide whether the money was, or was not, forfeited according to regulations.

Justice Hayout insisted on establishing a time line: what preceded what: the seizure of the money, its forfeiture, the acquittal etc. She upbraided the defense whose statements, she claimed, did not correspond to the dates of the events in question.  Atty. Segal, the respondent, was also censured for not presenting the relevant documents properly.

The respondent asserted that the confidential material contained the answers both to the present appeal regarding Mr. Issa's forfeited money, and to the other appeal (not discussed today) regarding prohibiting Mr. Issa from leaving the country. The confidential material indicates, he insisted, that the appellant is a security risk.

At the end of the session the audience was ordered to vacate the court so that the esteemed judges could examine the confidential material. An hour later they announced that they would continue to study the case and would hand down their decision in a few days.

We will follow up.

Translation: Marganit W.

Russian Compound

Hearings in the remand extensions of four detainees began at 10 and ended at 11:40.

Judge: Major Menahem Lieberman

Investigator: Avi Akiva

Atty. Fahmi Shkirat represents Fadi in his first remand extension hearing. The police requests 15 days remand. The judge peruses the file, remarks on the absence of memoranda and sends the investigator to bring them. The judge then decides on a five-day extension, until next Monday when, depending on the ongoing investigation, a longer extension may be granted.

Atty. Hashem Ma'amoun represents the next three detainees:

Nidal has been in detention for a month (since 2.12.09) and was barred from meeting with counsel. However the prohibition was later lifted. The attorney asks the judge's permission to give the detainee a pair of glasses. Request granted.

The attorney poses the usual questions (what are the charges, what are the findings, which organizations is he suspected of belonging to etc). He receives the familiar answers (mostly referring to the confidential file). The attorney asks about the month-long investigation (how often was he interrogated by the GSS, how many statements obtained, how many more interrogations are scheduled). The investigator replies. It transpires that the Nidal is accused of membership and activity in Hamas. The attorney maintains that judging by the results of so many interrogations, there is enough evidence to present an indictment, to hand the case over to the military prosecution, or to release the suspect on bail. Nidal (who speaks Hebrew) states that during the lengthy interrogations that often lasted through the night, he answered all the questions and gave all the information.

The judge in his summation states that the detainee was indeed interrogated dozens of times but it is evident that "he acted against security in the region... In 2002 he was released after 12 years in jail for an attempted murder of a policeman.... New facts have surfaced in the last few days of interrogation... On the other hand, the investigation could have been done a month ago..."

Decision: 8 day remand extension.

Rani Ayub Najar, from Ramallah. Arrested about a month ago. This is his fourth remand hearing. The police moves for a 15-day remand extension. Like Nidal, the previous detainee, Rani is suspected of membership in Hamas. There is mention of earlier detention by the PA. The attorney repeats a few questions for the investigator, but mostly addresses his criticism to the judge:

"Where is the judicial review? Rani is in detention, but has not been interrogated for ten days. Yesterday he was interrogated, but, as on all earlier occasions, he was told that the investigation is complete." The judge voices his own criticism of the prosecution of the case and decides on an 8-day remand extension.

In both cases the judge urged Atty. Ma'amoun not to pose too many questions. The judge says that he has the confidential material, and the attorney has had conference with his clients, so everyone knows the score and there's no need for questioning.

Ahmad Salman Abu-Ayad. Within a minute, at the sidebar, the investigator and the attorney agree on an 8-day extension.

Translation: Marganit W.

At 10:00 nobody waited by the gate and the yard was completely empty: no families, no lawyers, only soldiers sitting at the gate, clueless and uninterested.

At 10:30 four buses passed by, full of family members on their way to various prisons. This is the reason for the empty court. ‘Ziara' - the visits of prisoners' families at various jails around the country. At Bitunia checkpoint the buses were checked for over two hours, halting traffic for everyone else. We'll return to this delay at the checkpoint later. The attorneys from Jerusalem, however, were able to come. In one of the halls, we caught the tail end of a hearing where the judge told a young suspect: "your attorney did not show up so the trial is postponed." As usual, it was the attorney's fault for not showing up. The judge wasn't even aware of the fact that the checkpoint had been closed from 6 AM even though, as military judge, he is part of the same system that governs the checkpoints.

Then there was some mysterious "defense drill, but before we could find out about it, it was over.

At 11:00 the hearings started.

Judge: Zvi Frankel (res.)

Mazen Abu Shakra, resident of Bethlehem, represented by Atty. Ihab Galid.

The charge: membership in an unlawful association. In fact, two associations: Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In two police statements the suspect admits most of the charges against him: producing an incendiary device, possessing combat materiel and throwing rocks. As always, the charge of membership in an unlawful association is too vague. They made him an offer, he agreed, and then he recanted.

Judge's ruling: The suspect poses a risk, therefore remand until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Aassem (I did not get his last name), 21.

Defense: Atty. Munzar Abu Ahmed.

No family members were present in the court.

A frail looking young man. The charge: membership in an unlawful association. A previous decision released him on 4000-shekel bail, but the family did not have this sum. They could not even afford the bus ride to attend the hearing. The attorney requests "affordability investigation" citing a Supreme Court decision that a person should not be remanded in custody for lack of funds. The attorney moves to reduce the bail to 2500 to be paid not by the family but by a benevolent association that specializes in posting bail for Palestinian detainees.

The prosecutor opposes the reduction claiming that the accused had not submitted any proof of hardship nor made any effort to pay the bail. [My question: how can he submit proof when he's in jail, with no phone, and the family doesn't even have the money to come and visit him?]

The defense attorney, too, wants to know how his client could have obtained the money. From Wall Street?

Now the judge conducts the "affordability investigation".

Judge: Where do you work?

Suspect: I don't work.

Judge: So what do you do?

Suspect: I'm looking for work.

Judge: What does your family live on?

A long silence, then the accused says: The blessing that God sends us.

Decision: The parents are unemployed, so the sum is reduced to 2500 shekels.

The judge also allows Aassem two phone calls to arrange the bail.

Salah Abu Ghosh, 14 years old from Qalandiya refugee camp. Represented by Atty. Iyad Misk.

We attended the first part of this case on 8.12.09 (see Hagit Shlonsky's report).

The defendant is sick and needs constant medical treatment. In a previous hearing the judge ordered him released on 8000-shekel bail. Meanwhile, the release was postponed, due to the appeal of the prosecution. The Appeals judge ordered the prosecution to adduce new evidence in view of the "weak evidence" (another newspeak term), in order to obtain a remand extension. The suspect's mother pleaded the court to put her in jail instead. Today she was present in court too explaining once more that her son should not be incarcerated, as it is crucial that he should not miss his medical treatment. Well, the prosecution found new evidence. The judge, however, sustained the release order. The prosecution requested, and was granted, 72 hours to appeal. If there is a decision to release the sick boy on bail, there will be a review of the 8000-shekel decision depending on the financial situation of the family.

Samih Jadalla Ali Hatib, a 14.5 years old from Bil'in. Case No. 3894/09

Prosecutor:  Lieut. Tamar Bukia

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati

This is part of the army's massive campaign against the village of Bil'in (See Amira Haas article in today's Haaretz).

Prosecutor: there is a video recording of the defendant and another boy throwing rocks at the separation wall.

Defense: My client is a minor. He suffers from a heart condition. The interrogation was in violation of his rights as a minor.

Decision: Remand extension for 4 days, until 27.12.09.

Additional comments:

At 13:40 I had to leave the court to go to my car. Two women, who had been barred from entering, approached me and asked me to summon their lawyer. A relative of theirs was being tried in court. They had to wait at Beituniya checkpoint until 11, and consequently were late, arriving after the lawyer (who is the only one who can admit them in court). I found the lawyer and relayed their request.

At 14:45, on our way home, we found the two women still waiting outside. There are no bathrooms and no food there. The women had left home at 6 AM. They told me that the lawyer had come out to see them and had promised to arrange things; but they were still waiting. His cell phone was turned off the whole time.

This is not the first time we encounter such behavior from lawyers, which is truly deplorable.

Courtroom 4

Judge: Major Hillit Bar-On Biber

Prosecutor: Capt.Odelia Amos

Defence: Mahmud Hassan

Evidentiary Hearing

Defendant: Saed Suhir Jamil Alhamamra - File Nr. 1919/09 - I.D. 852046929

(see reports of previous hearings on 22.7.09 / 12.8.09)

Witness for the defence: Saber Muhammed Ali Alhamamra

Saber was summoned as witness for the defence in order to support Saed's testimony that he does not know Muhammed Shusha, the young man, who has incriminated him and Saber.

Interrogation by the defence:

Saber was arrested the same night as Saed and together with 15 other young men from the village Hussan. At the time of his arrest, Saber was shortly after eye surgery, a transplantation of the cornea, performed in St Jones hospital in Jerusalem, and the stitches of the surgery have not yet been removed. They were removed 2 days later in Hadassah Hospital. Saber is a neighbour of Saed, but they are not friends. During his police investigation Saber was asked if he knows Mohammed Shusha, who incriminated him and Saed. Saber answered that he did not know him. He did not sign the protocol of his interrogator, because the interrogator wrote down answers he did not give. He also could not read a great part of the handwriting of the interrogator. To the question, for instance, if he threw stones Saber answered "no", and the interrogator wrote down "yes".

Cross-interrogation by the prosecution:

"You said that you do not know Muhammed Shusha".

"No, I don't know him."

"You said that you were not a member of the "Popular Front" [for the Liberation of Palestine], and that you did not act against the security of the region."

"Yes".

The defence lawyer corrected her: "He did say that he did not throw Molotov Cocktails"

Saber: "No, I did not throw Molotov Cocktails"

Prosecution: "If you did not do anything, why did Muhammed Shusha incriminate you?"

"I don't know."

"Why should somebody whom you do not know, incriminate you?"

"I don' know."

"It is very strange, that you do not know Muhammed Shusha, who is the same age as you, comes from the same village as you und worked in Beitar Ilit at the same time as you did. What is your answer to this?"

"The police investigator told me that Shusha was in the same class as me, he showed me his picture and the date of his birth. I realized that he is younger than me."

"He is probably a couple of months younger than you. Do you know anybody from the Shusha family?"

"We have a brother-in-law from the Shusha family, which is very large indeed."

"Nevertheless, why should somebody, who does not know you and whom you do not know, incriminate you?"

"I don't know".

"Would you do such a thing? To incriminate somebody whom you do not know?"

"No."

"Do you know my name? How old I am? Where I live? Where I worked a year ago?"

'No"

"It is not logical, that strangers could give exact information about you. How come?"

"I don't know."

"Shusha gave us your exact name, age, place of living and of work, Beitar Ilit!"

"I don't work in Beitar Ilit any longer. I work now at the supermarket"  

The prosecutor went on and tried to entangle Saber in a web of questions about his eye surgery (there were 30 of them) and about the date of the last one. She tried to confuse him and went so far as to demand documents concerning his eye problems.

Then she tried to challenge Saber's credibility with questions concerning the interrogation protocol that he did not sign.

"Why didn't you speak about the wrong entries that your interrogator wrote in the protocol during your own trial?"

"I spoke about it, as a matter of fact"

"But I do not see any remarks in the protocol".

"I spoke about it to the interrogator."

"Why didn't you tell your Judge?"

"He did not ask me about these matters."

The prosecutor wanted to imply that Saber knows Saed very well and that he, therefore, agreed to be a witness so as to help Saed.

"You said that you are a neighbor of Saed. Could it be that you came today in order to get Saed out of prison?"

"No, I came in order to answer correctly on what really happened to me."

At the end of the interrogation the two sides decided, that the summary of the prosecution will be presented at the next session in written form and the summery of the defence will be presented orally. In addition, the defence lawyer will seek to receive the witness'  permission to disclose his medical documents and submit them to the prosecution, so as to support the credibility of Saber.

The next hearing is set for 24.09.09, at 14:00

Translation: Marganit W.

Reminder Hearing

Get Up, Sit Down

On Tuesday August 17, I had plenty of time to look at the wall over the judge's empty seat at the military courtroom Nr. 1 in Salem. It was 10:35 when His Honor arrived and we got up, then he sat down (and so did we), under the three emblems decorating the wall: the scales of justice entwined with an olive branch (no inscription), the Menorah flanked by olive branches over the word "Israel," and the olive branch surrounding a sword that pierces a Star of David over the inscription "Israel's Defense Forces" - a reminder that our hand is forever stretched out for peace.

We rose again when Captain Haim Wismonsky, the military judge, decided not to wait in the courtroom for the prosecution's arrival. Then we sat down and waited for the prosecutor, who arrived at around 11:00. When the judge came back, we got up and sat down when he did.

All this time, between getting up and down, seven pot-bellied prison guards in gray prison guards uniforms were busy ushering in detainees, taking off their handcuffs, shackling them again and leading them out.

There were 8 detainees waiting for their trials, all looking thin, smiling, clad in brown prison uniforms. Two are accused of keeping and trading in combat materiel, two of leaving the area without permits, two of membership and activity in an unlawful association, one of hurling objects and one of terrorist acts.

It was eleven AM when the session started at Salem military court.

Everything is Relative

Imad Az Aldin Muhamad Maraba, ID. 948979455, Case No. 3542/09, born in 1986, about to graduate with a degree in Arabic from Al-Najah University and planning to get married. But on Wednesday, July 22, 2009, at 2 AM, the Israel Defense Forces showed up at his home in Azun Athma, in Qalqilyia district, and today, August 17, he is to be sentenced for the charge of membership and activity in an unlawful association.

He first appeared in Court 1 at Salem on Thursday 6.8.09 for remand extension. The hearing lasted a minute and a half. The judge accepted the plea bargain between the two sides, and the remand was extended for 8 days. In fact, the remand was shortened and eventually another hearing took place at Salem on 12.8.09.

On the day of the sentencing, 5 days after the second remand extension, one of his eight sisters (he also has 4 brothers) wanted to join their parents and attend the trial, but she was refused entry. Detainees are allowed only 2 visitors, no exceptions .

Since he was taken from his bed on July 22, until his first appearance in court on August 6, he has been in Jalame [detention center].

His father instructed Attorney Zahalka to offer to pay a heavier fine to shorten his son's detention. He hoped for 3 months. Considering that membership in Hamas usually results in 18 months in jail, the attorney thought the 6 months he managed to obtain in the bargaining was a great achievement.

The Bound and the Unbound

The prosecution requested 6 months, 2000 shekel fine or alternatively 2 months jail time, plus probation for a period to be determined by the court.

The defense agreed, the judge recognized that Imad had no prior convictions and the activity in question involved merely students' activity and propaganda; Imad was a member of Hamas for only a couple of months and there was no indication of any hostile activity; he admitted his guilt at the first opportunity, thus saving the court the need to summon witnesses, but according to the (Emergency) Defense Laws, membership and activity in an unlawful association carries a punishment, and he admitted his guilt.

The judge added that he was not bound by the agreement between the prosecutor and the defense, and he might come down harder on the defendant. Attorney Zahalka suggested gently that he use his ‘unbound' privilege to hand down a lighter sentence, but the suggestion was rejected on ‘statistical grounds'. "Has anything like this ever happened?" "Really?" "There was a precedent at Salem? Interesting!"

I asked, was it worthwhile to confess and to enter a plea bargain?  Zahalka reminded me that given the legal system that governs the lives of the occupied Palestinians, a plea bargain is the only means guaranteeing a shorter period of the defendant's freedom being denied. This coming Christmas Eve, Imad Maraba will be released from the clutches of the "unbound" judge, from the long arm of the occupation law and from the local theory of relativity, and will resume his life.

We got off lightly this time.

Translation: L.W.

We came to follow up the trial of Saed Suhir Jamil Alhamamra - File 1919/09, resident of Hussan (see report of hearing: Ofer 22.7.09).

He is accused of "membership in an unlawful association" (The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine).

Saed Hamamra belongs to a minority of defendants who do not admit to the charges against them (from the beginning he refused to sign the police statement after his interrogation in the police station).

He was arrested in February 2009, and has been detained in Ofer detention centre ever since.

His trial is now at the evidentiary stage.

Two defense witnesses have been summoned for today - one of them is Saed himself, but the other witness (also detained) did not show up because the prosecution succeeded in cutting a plea bargain with his lawyer: he was promised a lighter sentence if he refused to appear as a witness.

Judge: Captain Hilit Bar-On Biber

Prosecutor: Captain Oren Liber

Defense: Advc. Mahmoud Hassan

In his interrogation as a witness, the defendant says that he has no connection with his incriminator, Muhamad Shusha: he knows him as a resident of the same village, but that is all. There has never been a dispute between them, and that is not the reason why Shusha chose to incriminate him. In response to defense's question as to why he did not request from the police interrogator a confrontation between him and Shusha, he answered that he did request a confrontation, but none took place.

He declares himself as being a religious man who goes to pray in the mosque, wheras members of the Popular Front do not pray. He also relates that he works as a carpenter in his father's carpentry shop, goes occasionally to meet his cousins, and beyond that he has no time for other activities.

During the cross examination, the prosecutor tries to catch him out in a lie. He wants to know how come that the defendant did not know the incriminator, who was able to give quite a bit of information about him. Saed persists that it was only when he saw him in court that he understood that this was the man who incriminated him - a man whom he only knew before only by appearance.

He repeats that he has no time for other activities besides work, prayer and family visits.

From the cross examination:

Prosecutor: I am telling you that you are saying these things now in order to try to prove to us that you do nothing else. Do you try to distance yourself from things that you did in the Popular Front?

Saed: I am not a member in the Popular Front, neither do I belong to any other organisation. I do not involve myself with these things. I only work to provide a livelihood for my family and to help my father - and also [to help] my sister who has to undergo an operation, so that nothing [bad] happens to her.

Prosecutor: perhaps in one of your activities was to write slogans for The Popular Front?

Saed: no... neither did the man who incriminated me mention any specific time or place where I was supposed to write slogans.

Asked why he refused to sign the police statement, Saed answers: because what was written in the statement was a lie, and I did not do any such thing. I did not sign because the interrogator asked me about the Popular Front, and I answered that I have no connection [to the organisation], and then he wrote [all kinds of] things. I am innocent, and therefore did not sign. Had I signed they could have proved the charges against me [used my statement against me].

Two more evidentiary sessions for the defense were set for: 9.9.09 and 16.9.09 .

Two additional defense witnesses will be summoned for those dates.