Throwing an Incendiary Object

 

Translation: Marganit W.

 
Ofra's Report:
We came to observe the trial of Bassem Tamimi. While waiting we met the
worried parents of a minor facing remand extension. Four other minors (maybe there were more - there was not docket, as should be) paraded before the judge, Sharon Rivlin-Ahai, who is in charge of trying Palestinian children and youths. Perhaps her practice will soon be extended, if the Prime Minister's suggestion that the Youth of the Hills  - who threaten peace in the region - are to be tried at the military courts in Judea. However, if this comes to pass, it will surely be the End of Days. In the meantime,only Palestinian children are routinely incriminated by their peers - courtesy of the GSS; only Palestinian children are kidnapped from bed in the middle of the night by Israeli soldiers and handed over to seasoned interrogators who also export their expertise to other countries; only
Palestinian children are taken away from their families and detained for months, cut off from friends and from their studies - only because they are Palestinians. This is what happened to the four I saw today, as they were brought in, two by two, handcuffed together:

Muhammad Abu Rumi, 15, from Al-Azariya, Saber Maali, 16 from Daheishe , Muaz Abu Nasser, 15,  and Yusuf Sabahne, 14, both from Daheishe, both detained since 23.7.11!
All four are accused of throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails. All categorically deny the allegations, which is why no plea bargain has been struck, as the court normally tries to impose. This is the reason for the unusually protracted detention - almost half a year! - of Muaz and Yusuf.
Moreover, both are charged with a violation allegedly carried out on Naqba Day (May 2008, when they were 10 and 11). How can an incriminating child
remember what happened three years earlier, unless the interrogators "make sure" he remembers. Why is it so important for the system to prosecute
minors for something that happened when they were young kids?
Muhammad complained of having been beaten by the GSS officer. His defense attorney, Tareq Bargout requested a postponement so he can check the
complaint before the next hearing, on 18.1.12.
A conversation with the attorney and Muhammad's father yielded the following:
Muhammad was arrested with his brother Abdullah, 13. The father, Ramzi, joined them at the interrogation facility at the soldiers' request. In accordance with the law governing juvenile interrogations, he was present at Abdullah's interrogation, and the latter was promptly released. But at the same time, Muhammad was interrogated without his father's presence, which is a violation of the Juvenile Law. He has been detained at Ofer ever since, for a month and a half.
 

Muaz and Yusuf are detained at Ward 3 at the Meggido Prison [the father claims that the facility houses adults too]. Their most serious complaint concerns "Ramleh Transit" (inside Ramleh Prison). This is part of the procedure of transferring prisoners/detainees from jail to the court. This transition site is notoriously agonizing. This is how the children describe it: filth, cockroaches, terrible food , awful toilets, no blankets! The tw spent 2 days at Ramleh Transit , from Thursday to Sunday, their day in court. The judge apparently knew about the ordeal, , which is why she showed "consideration" and set the next hearing day for Wednesday, which offers the shortest transit time.   

I reported all these facts to Physicians for Human Rights and to the Committee Against Torture as well as to B'tzelem.

Norah's Report:
As noted earlier, we came chiefly to attend the trial of Bassem Tamimi,
resident of Nabi Saleh, who has been detained since Mars 2011.

But before his trial started,  there was a memorandum hearing in the case of Muhammad Azem Zadki Kafaya, ID. 921569455, Case 1556/11
Judge: Major Etty Adar
Defense: Atty. Labib Habib
Charge: membership and activity [in an unlawful organization)
Kafaya is accused of supporting the Islamic Jihad. He was under administrative detention as well as detention by the PA.
His brother was in court. He told us that he, too, had been detained for a long period on charges of "membership".
An evidentiary hearing will be held on 5.2.12 at 13:30. Witnesses will be summoned.
 

Bassem Muhammad Abd Alrahman Tamimi, ID 959225640, Case  2058/11
Judge: Major Etty Adar
Defense: Atty. Labib Habib
Prosecutor: Major Michael Avitan

The only witness for the prosecution in this evidentiary hearing was Inspector Jalal Aweida who served as Investigation Officer (and is today a prosecutor in Acre). Aweida is well remembered for his testimony in the trial within a trial
concerning the legality of the interrogation of the minor Islam Dar Ayyoub from Nabi Saleh, who had incriminated Bassem Tamimi. [We found out lately that Justice Rivlin-Ahai had rejected the defense's argument that Islam's investigation was not conducted according to the law - see Press release and video from Islam's interrogation, published by the Popular Struggle Coordination Committee].

Aweida's examination and the cross-examination lasted for many hours, well into the afternoon. But the highlight of this tiresome examination was Aweida's repeated assertion that the minor's interrogation was conducted in a pleasant, relaxed atmosphere, that he did not use any intimidation tactics, everything was done in good humor. Even when he was confronted with a video of the interrogation where he is seen making threatening motions toward the boy, he insisted that it was all done jokingly”.
(See protocol of the hearing/examination- in Hebrew).

On the whole, Aweida's conduct was that of a landlord, not of a summoned witness. He answered what he chose to answer, raised his voice and bawled out the defense, until the judge had to reprimand him.
The next hearings are set for 22.1.12 /  29.1.12 / 19.2.12 / 26.2.12.

 

 

Translation: Marganit W.

A few minutes after our arrival, the last family members of the prisoners were admitted into the facility. We waited for 15 minutes for the gate to open. At the window the guard checked that our permits (with names, which is not required) were in order before letting us in.

Judge: Sharon Rivlin-Ahai
Prosecutor: Atty. Batya Piterio
Defense: Atty. Muhammad Shaheen
Most of the defendants were young boys.
 

Defendant: Azzadin Abu Shamaa, born 1997, from Al-Aroub refugee camp.
He is accused of throwing rocks and participating in a disturbance of the peace. A plea bargain stipulated 75 days incarceration (to coincide with time spent in detention), 1000 shekel fine and a suspended sentence of 5 months for 4 years, if he is ever accused of throwing rocks again.
Arguments for "leniency": no prior record, admission of guilt and his young age (he was not yet14 when the violation was committed).  It is important to note that during the plea bargain "evidentiary difficulties" were cited. Shouldn't this be grounds for withdrawal of the charge??
According to Azzadin's father, he was accused of taking part in "Naqba Day" demonstration; he was arrested a week later and has been detained for two and a half months (this schedule is questionable, since Naqba Day was
on May 15).

Zakaria Abu Aisha, 16 years old, from Bethlehem.
Defense: Atty. Muhammad Shaheen.
According to the revised charge sheet, the defendant admits to throwing rocks and paint bottles at defense forces, and hurling a Molotov cocktail at security forces last March.
The defense argued that despite the defendant's past record, the court should consider the fact that he is a minor. The judge reminded the defendant that at the previous trial he had claimed that friends dragged him along and he had promised not to repeat the offense; yet here he is again. It turns out that on 12.4.10 he was convicted of attacking and stabbing, together with friends. At the time he claimed that a friend threatened him and forced him to commit the act. He never intended to hurt anyone. He was sentenced to 12 months of time served and 12 months suspended sentence, which goes into effect today. He was released a year ago.
The judge approved a plea bargain, taking into account the defendant's past and the fact that the previous sentence was not enough of a deterrent; on the other hand, the court took into account his minority and his mental immaturity. His admission also contributed to the "leniency".
He was sentenced to 15 months in jail for this violation in conjunction with 3 months for the breach of the suspended sentence. In addition he will be jailed for 9 months. Altogether: 24 months. The judge declared this a lenient sentence considering the severity of the charges. Two years are not a light sentence for a kid this age.
The boy's face did not betray any emotion. His father, who sat next to us, spoke to him in a warm, soothing voice: You have two years now: use it to learn Hebrew, read the Koran, talk to God, use your time well. To us, the father remarked that his son was wrongly charged.

Omar Muhammad Al-Rahman, 14.5 years old, from Qalandiya refugee camp.
Asser Abd Al-Hakkim Shehadah, 14.5 years old, from Qalandiya refugee camp.
Defense: Atty. Ahlam Haddad
It was a joint hearing for both defendants.
The court accepted a plea bargain: the defendants were convicted as per their admission to having climbed a ladder over the fence and entering Atarot compound where they set fire to a tire and a cardboard. The court declared this not to be a clear case of "illegal sojourning" in Israel.
They were sentenced to jail time coinciding with their detention (66 days) and a 3000 shekel fine each, or alternately 3 months, plus suspended sentences for 4 years for similar violations of throwing objects. The arguments for the plea bargain were their admission of guilt at the police interrogation, their young age and the fact that there were serious flaws in the investigation. "Faulty investigation". In her decision, the judge added that in the future the court would show no tolerance for such lapses in a criminal investigation.
Atty. Ahlam later told us what the "faults" were. The interrogation was not filmed, only recorded. A comparison between the cassette and the transcript shows that only a few of the questions and answers were written down. There was no Juvenile Interrogator present; the interrogator yelled at the boys, the interrogation was conducted in Hebrew with interpretation, but the boys were unable to follow and verify what was said. Why are these failures called "flaws"? Is it just deviation from procedural rules or grounds for appealing the charges?

Salwwa Hassan, 51 years old.
Defense: Atty. Mahmoud Hassan
The defendant's son, 24 years old, was present in court and her face lit up when she saw him.
She is charged with chasing a settler with a knife at a checkpoint. (recorded in a film). The defendant claims that she had heard voices telling her to do it. A regional psychiatrist examined her and declared her fit to stand trial.

The defense argued that there are gaps between his version and the prosecution's and that he was trying to bridge those gaps. He requested a postponement.

Next hearing is set for 18.1.12.

 

Translation: Marganit W.)
 

General Notes:
1. Lately, check-ups at the entrance have become stricter: last week security guides examined my writing pad and my hairpins (which I always remove because of the magnetometer). This time they were taken away and deposited together with our IDs.
2. Getting out of the compound was equally difficult: we had to wait, together with several families, for about half an hour, calling and ringing the bell, to get the attention of Nadav (in charge of security check).
3. As described in Hava's report from last week, there were difficulties with access to dockets. In two courtrooms we had to request them, and in another the interpreter referred us to Rafa (Head of Interpreters) who supposedly had those dockets, but the latter denied it.
4. We came to observe the trial of  the Al-Zi'ul brothers (See last week's report). Their names were not on the list, and we did not see their parents in court. Thus, the difficulty in obtaining the dockets dictates which trials we observe.

Judge: Zvi Heilbronn

Defendant: Samer Mahana Abed Alkadar Abu Maria - Case No. 2612/11
Charge: Leaving the area without a permit. He is not in detention.
We did not get the attorney's name. It was an arraignment hearing. The defendant denies the allegation that he used false papers, claiming that those were official documents. Witnesses will be summoned and documents will be presented.

The defendant was accompanied by his father, a blind old man in tattered clothes and old shoes with no socks, who drew the judge's attention to himself.
Evidentiary hearing is set for 2.8.11.

Defendant: Muatasem Mazen Abd Elkadar Rakban - Case No. 4526/10
Charge: Manufacturing and throwing an incendiary object.
Defense: Atty. Tarek Bargout
(When we entered the court, the trial was in session)
The defendant stated that he had accepted the charges at the police station because he wanted to settle scores with Nidal, the operative who controlled him.

The prosecutor asked why he also confessed to acts where Nidal was not implicated, but the defendant did not understand the question, despite repeated attempts to simplify it.

As to why in his interrogation he also admitted throwing Molotov Cocktails at events where he was not present, the defendant replied that he had been intimidated and
threatened with transfer to the Russian Compound.

The defense skipped the cross-examination; he was not ready for summation at this stage.
An oral summation hearing (with both sides agreeing) was set for 26.7.11
at 9 AM.

The prosecutors is to present the evidence within a week.

Defendant: Halil Muhammad Halil Awauda - Case No. 2559/11.
Charged with membership and activity in a hostile organization.
Defense: Atty. Abu-Mazar (?)
The defendant understands and denies the allegations.
Evidentiary hearing is set for 13.9.11, as the defendant requested to have the hearing after the month of Ramadan [August].

Defendants:

Rashad Muhammad Marshad Hamad - Case No. 2034/11
Muhammad Izat Izat - Case No. 2035/11
Muhammad Ahmad Mahmud Hamad - Case No. 2036/11
Charge: attempted killing.
Defense: Atty. Akram Samara
The trial of the three defendants was postponed to 6.9.11 because the attorney could not find the file.

Defendant: Hassan Abed Almatlab Abed Aljaffer Bakri - Case No. 5357/11
Charge: Using and dealing drugs.
Defense: Atty. Avi Baram
The defendant was caught in Azariya in possession of a "dangerous drug", hashish (53 grams) and 17 Ecstasy pills.

The defendant understands the charge and admits guilt. He has prior convictions.
The sides reached a plea bargain involving 6-month jail time because of an earlier suspended sentence, plus 7 more months for this violation. The agreement calls for overlapping jail sentences of 10 months and 4000 shekel fine or 4 months in jail.

The court was to consider a suspended sentence.
Grounds for the agreement: the defendant's prior record.

The attorney maintains that the defendant has a serious drug problem, but the PA has no
rehab facility. He has 4 children. He is asking the court to divide the suspended sentence into two violations: dealing drugs and using drugs.

The court approved the agreement and accepted the defense' plea. The defendant
received a 3 month suspended sentence for 3 years for using drugs and 8 months suspension for 3 years for the crime of dealing drugs.
The court ordered the destruction of the drugs and the knife found during the arrest, but returned 1780 shekels confiscated from the defendant at that time. The court also recommended that the GSS enroll the defendant in a rehab program.

According to the arrangement, the defendant has a month and 8 days to serve time.

Judge: Sharon Rivlin-Ahai
 

Defendant: Ossama Mahmud Abed Alaziz Kamel - Case No. 3184/11
Charge: manufacturing and throwing an incendiary object.
Defense: atty. Akram Samara.
The defendant is 16 years old.
The defendant admits to throwing rocks at the separation fence on five occasions. However he denies throwing rocks at moving vehicles.

As for his signed statement at the police, he claims that he confessed and
incriminated others because he was beaten. After being interrogated for two hours by Captain Daud (who beat him and slapped his face), the captain asked if he had a lawyer. He said no. He was alone in a room with Captain Daud. He was then transferred to another interrogator who also ignored the attorney issue. That second interrogator did not beat him up, but he told him that everything he had told Daud was already written in the statement, so he repeated what he had said earlier.

As to why he incriminated those specific people, he said those were the names that popped into his head.
In reply to his attorney's question, he said he had been taken from home at 5 AM.

The judge commented (with a rather cynical smile, to my mind) that apparently they waited until morning.
Evidentiary hearing is set for 2.8.11.

 

Translation: Marganit W.

We came to observe the trial of Mahmoud Waja Muhammad Tamimi, 14 years old from Nabi Salah, detained since 12.4.11.

Hava Halevi's Report:

Courtroom 2
Judge: Sharon Rivlin-Ahai
Defense: Atty. Akram Samara

As usual, a bureaucratic mess: no dockets to be found anywhere. The interpreter we approached claimed he had posted the lists earlier and promised to give us copies. He did not; hence we have no ID numbers.
At any given moment, three or four attorneys were talking to the judge. Files were brought in, detainees came in, in pairs or triplets, handcuffed together; they left the court without our being able to follow the cases.
Interpreters walked in and out, as did security guards and GSS officers, and family members who always sit in the last row conversed with the detainees during breaks and hearings.

Occasionally, the interpreter translated some phrases…
 

Mahmud Tamimi is a small, fair skinned boy who is accused of throwing rocks. His hearing was no different: Atty. Samara spoke with the judge and with the prosecutor, who at the same time spoke with several other attorneys. After a few minutes, he left with a document presumably setting a new date for the hearing.

Atty. Samara also represented Firas Halil Yussuf  Badran, age 20, from Qalandiya
Refugee Camp, who is accused of possessing combat materiel and weapons. He was in detention for 17 months, released 2 months ago, then arrested again. The attorney told us that his client was clearly seen on a cassette holding a Molotov cocktail.

The verdict reflected the self-righteousness and paternalistic attitude of the judge. She imposed 10 months of jail time, 8 of them suspended sentence for a prior conviction, plus 18 months suspended sentence for 5 years, 3 months suspended sentence for entering
Israel illegally and a 2000 shekel fine or 2 month in jail.

Here is what she said:
In the previous sentence the court showed consideration, but the defendant did not use this opportunity (opportunity for what? Was he offered a scholarship to an elite university?) and repeated the offense. He is older than his partners in crime. The others admitted their guilt and showed remorse, whereas he did not assume responsibility (i.e., admit guilt).
Atty. Samara queried the father's claim that his son owns an oven near the checkpoint, and that's why he was captured nearby; the son was caught on camera. The attorney agreed with the judge's reckoning of the penalty.

Salah Hamamra Mehusan, 18.5 years old, accused of throwing objects.
Defense: Atty. Akram Samara.
Salah was arrested a week ago. Friends of the family, not his parents, are present in court.
We asked why the parents were not there and were told that there is a hearing every week and they cannot come each time. This is strange considering Salah was arrested only a week ago and this is the first hearing in his case.
The hearing is rescheduled for 25.7.11.

Courtroom 3
Judge: Meir Lakhan
Prosecutor: Lieut. Mughira Sarhan
Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati
 

Muhammad Ahmed Ganimat, ID. 852724624
Charge: attacking a policeman
The prosecution requests extending the detention by 3 days to prepare the charge sheet.
The case involves a demonstration in the settlement of Karmei Zur. The army declared the area a closed military zone, but Muhammad did not leave the area, even though he was aware of the injunction. He resisted arrest and the soldiers had to use 'reasonable force' to arrest him.

[In my experience, 'reasonable force' means brutal violence, but who defines
'reasonable force'? Reasonable according to whose definition?]
The defense requested alternative to detention, meaning releasing the man until his trial. The prosecution cites a precedent. The defense rejects the analogy between the two cases and cites another precedent.

But what is interesting is what happened during the demonstration. The defendant was
arrested together with two Swedish (female) activists, who were also charged with attacking an officer. One is claimed to have thrown the officer to the ground and kicked him. The court found her guilty of attacking an officer but deemed her not dangerous, and so she was not sent to jail. In our case the man took part in a demonstration protesting the
theft of the land of his village. He has no prior conviction, the attack
was not serious and there are alternatives to 'detention until the conclusion of the proceedings': he could be removed from the contested area and he could be ordered to report to the police on demonstration days (Saturday).
The defense added that the defendant's sister has leukemia and needs her brother to accompany her on a trip to Jordan for three days.
So what do have here? Two Swedish women and a Palestinian who participated in a demonstration against land grab. The Swedes were released - one on her own recognizance, the other at a Magistrate Court in Jerusalem, and Muhammad who in addition is accused of infringing on a closed military zone.
Decision: remand extension of 3 days to complete the indictment until 30.6.11.
The defense plans to appeal. It will be interesting to follow up.

Mili Mass's report:
 

Judge: Yair Nehorai
Defense: Tarek Bargout

Salah Abu Garbiya, age 27, was arrested 8 days ago accused of being an accomplice in the murder of two men (fathers) in Anata a year ago. The defendant's alibi is being investigated. A GSS interrogator claims the alibi is not credible: the witness who saw the defendant somewhere else at the time of the crime is accused of being an accomplice. The judge instructs the attorney not to try to disprove the prosecution's claim at this stage because the investigation is still on; he should elicit from the defendant the names of other witnesses who can support his claim. The defendant says he has already supplied the interrogators with many names, which they ignored. He mentions 4 more people who, he claims, saw him elsewhere at the time he is alleged to have been in Anata, supposedly
committing a murder.
The prosecution failed to supply a track record of phone calls required for checking an alibi. The prosecutor requests remand extension of 15 days to complete the investigation. A ten-day extension is agreed upon, to enable the investigators to check the witnesses supplied by the defendant and to present the phone records.
The discussion of the alibi will continue on 7.7.11 before a remand judge.

Atty. Haled Al Araj represented Ahmad Suleiman Abu Mafrah, age 19.
Charge: throwing rocks on two occasions: two years ago and a year ago.
As for the 2-year old charge, the defense says that the defendant was 17 years old at the time. Since then he has changed the course of his life. Detention will interrupt his training at a Police Academy in Egypt.

As for the one-year old charge, the defense claims that he was already residing in Egypt at the time.
It transpires that the defense is wrong, and that "a year ago" the defendant was still in Israel. But then, the attorney claims, he was studying for his matriculation exam and unlikely to participate in rock throwing.

Once again, the judge stepped out of his role of arbitrator (as is common in Israeli practice) and asked the prosecution to reconsider its position, adding that even though the charge is serious, "a year ago" is too imprecise. The charge refers to a rock throwing by a group of people, which makes it difficult to identify the defendant. In addition, the defendant has turned a new leaf, intending to become a law- abiding citizen. The judge urged the prosecution to reach an agreement, whereupon both sides left the court.
In a phone conversation later, Atty. Al Araj told me that no agreement had been struck with the prosecution. The two sides returned to the court, and the defense insisted that the defendant could not have participated in rock throwing a year ago because he was studying for his exams; he got excellent grades, which allowed him to enroll in the studies program he is in now.
The judge released the defendant. 

Translation: Marganit W.

 

Courtroom 2(10:00 -13:30)

Judge: Major Avri Einhorn

Prosecutor: Lieutenant Erez Ashhar

 

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

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

 

5 detainees were represented by Atty. Ihab Jalid.

 

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

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

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

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

Arraignment hearing is set for 18.5.11 before Justice Etty Adar.

 

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

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

Hearing set for 18.5.11 before Justice Etty Adar.

 

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

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

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

Arraignment hearing set for 18.5.11 before Justice Etty Adar.

 

 

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

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

Decision: detention until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Arraignment hearing is set for 18.5.11 before Justice Etty Adar.

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

Alaa Abdullah Said Suleiman– Case No. 2698/11

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

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

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

Decision: detention until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Arraignment set for 18.5.11 before Justice Major Shmuel Fleischman.

 

Naji Arar – Case No. 2546/11

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

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

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

We will continue to follow the case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Translation: Marganit W.

morning and afternoon sessions.

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

The judge answers her politely.

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

(See article by Amira Haas on 27.3.11)

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

(See report on Islam’s interrogation)

 

Judge: Major Zvi Heilbronn

Prosecutor: Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Atty. Habib Labib

 

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

(See Press Release by Popular Struggle Committee)

 

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

This is a very serious indictment, which involves incitement.

(For details see indictment in Hebrew)

 

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

 

 

  

Translation: Marganit W.

 

Hagit Shlonsky’s Report

 

Judge: Lieut.-Col. Ronen Atzmon (sitting in for Sharon Rivlin-Ahai)

Prosecutor: Tali Keret (and another prosecutor in civilian clothes)

4 minors were in the dock, waiting for the judge for about an hour. The hearing started late, at 11 AM.

There were 23 cases in the docket, most charges were of throwing rocks and other objects.

By noon 8 cases were heard.

 

This was supposed to be the concluding hearing in the case of  Wassim Said Saadi Alkarki – Case No. 3964/10. He is a 16-year old boy from Hebron. His Attorney Ilya Theodory, tells the  judge that the agreement reached with the prosecution is problematic. Wassim had been convicted and served time on three occasions in 2010. His present detention has been going on for six months already as resulting from a suspended sentence. He comes from an afflicted family and needs treatment, not further incarceration. The PA does not have suitable services and institutions for Wassim’s special needs. Without proper treatment he will repeat the offences. Wassim’s father throws himself on the mercy of the court, pleading for his son’s release on conditions specified in the plea bargain, which include a 3500-shekel fine. The judge accedes to the defense and releases the boy on 1000-shekel bail on condition that he is referred to a welfare officer at Beit-El for observation. Only after options for treatments are considered will he be sentenced.

Prosecutor Tali Keret objects to the deferment of sentencing. The judge allows her two hours for consultation. 20 minutes later a solution is found that allows the boy to be released after the parents have deposited 3500 shekels.

If he is not released by 14.4.11, another hearing will take place on that day.

 

Amir Samir Waja Bastami – Case No. 4701/10, from Abu-Dis.

He was 16 when the violations occurred in May and July of 2010.

(See previous reports: 7.2.11 and 14.2.11 from Ofer)

He is charged with throwing a paint bottle and a Molotov cocktail with other boys. Today he accepts the charges. Atty. Akram Smara conducted the evidentiary trial. Interrogators from Maale-Adumin police testified. “Their testimony lacked credibility and veracity… a cassette recording of the interrogation went missing…” These revelations, however, did not bother the court; it merely noted that there were ‘evidentiary difficulties’ and therefore accepted the agreement between the sides: 14 months jail time; 10 months suspended sentence for 4 years and 2000-shekel fine.

 

The hearing in the case of Mahmud Alaa Mahmud Samara – Case No. 1406/11 - a 15-year old accused of throwing objects, was postponed to 28.3.11. Atty. Akram Samara represents him.

----------------------------------

 

Ofra Ben-Artzi’s report:

 

Military Court of Appeals

Judge: Colonel Aharon Mishnayot

Defense: Atty. Tarek Bargout

Respondent: Muhammad Daoud – Case No. 1227/11

 

The prosecution appealed a sentence, which took into account the personal circumstances of the accused.

Even though Muhammad had already been convicted in the past for throwing rocks, the court took into consideration his mental state and sentenced him to only 16 months in jail. The prosecutor insisted on “a significantly harsher punishment”.

The case involves throwing a Molotov cocktail. The prosecutor contrasted the plea bargain with an evidentiary hearing, declaring that this is a “futile trial”. In other words, according to him, a Palestinian who chooses to go through a trial is cheating the court and must therefore pay for it with a stiff punishment, so as to deter others. From the prosecutor’s perspective, those who opt for plea bargain should not feel like ‘suckers’ compared to those who go through a trial, thereby wasting the court’s time.

When the prosecutor said: …”Unlike others, the respondent chose to conduct an evidentiary trial…” the judge responded: “It was his right to do so!”

The judge handed down his decision the next day: he rejected the prosecution’s appeal.

An important comment made by the defense:Find out if the psychiatrist at Ofer Prisonspeaks Arabic. Probably not!

 

Appellant: Iman Said Hamida, ID 904614062,detained since 19.10.09

Atty. Bargout allowed me to look into an interesting decision given on 13.2.11

 

The appellant requested that the court summon police informers, who shared a detention cell with him at Shikma Detention Center in Ashkelon. He described a series of physical abuses, including a strangling attempt, injuries to the legs, intimidation and humiliation.

In an uncommon, perhaps precedent-setting decision, the judge ordered the police informers to testify. Colonel Mishnayot sided with the appellant and nullified the lower court’s decision which relied, among others, on Section 87a of the Security Regulations which states: “…When dealing with the activity of learning organizations, ambiguity is an essential part of the modus operandi…”

The judge commented: “As our Sages used to say: ‘There is no blessing save in what is hidden from the eye.’”

It is important to note that there was no objection to summoning the GSS interrogators to testify, and indeed they testified. But the judge noted: “There is a clear difference between interrogators and informers… the very existence of GSS interrogators is known to one and all and is not done undercover… whereas the activity of informers… is part of methods that are done undercover and are protected.”

------------------------------

 

Hava Halevi’s report:

On 3.1.11 I reported on the trial of two defendants, Salah and Daoud Abu Romi, members of the same family, who worked at a gas station in Maale Adumim. Since they were often short of money, they had an agreement with the bookkeeper: she gave them cash advances on their salaries, they signed for the “loan” and later returned the money, mostly by receiving a smaller payment.

Suddenly one day, according to the indictment, the owner discovered that 160,000 shekels were missing from the till. The two men were arrested.

Their trial continues today. The indictment has been amended. Only 8,000 shekels were missing. The owner called one of the men, and he admitted taking the money, and promptly returned it. The bookkeeper testified, but she did not say that she had a tacit agreement with the workers. She had not told the owner about the agreement, so the charge was “stealing from the boss.”

How did the sum shrink from 160,000 to 8000? Who came up with that astronomical sum in the first place? Atty. Daoud Azi told me: They write whatever they want.

Penalty: 5000 shekels fine plus 2000 compensation to the owner for the mental distress he suffered, plus 5-month suspended sentence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Translation: Marganit W.

 

Ofra’s report:

Four minors were on trial today. Here is an explanation of what “Double Punishment” is:

There is a noticeable trend of minors and youngsters refusing to enter a plea bargain and opting for a trial event when the charge is throwing rocks and incendiary objects. Most of these boys pay for it with long incarcerations, often for months, proportionate to the violations. One detainee has been in jail for 9 months already. Apparently, this is the price the system extracts from those who do not submit to its diktats to enter a plea bargain.

In the meantime, we found out from one of the attorneys that this is indeed the case. Behind the scene, the system blatantly threatens detainees with “double punishment” if they reject a bargain. This is extremely damaging and we shall apprise human rights organization of our findings.

 

Judge: Major Shmuel Fleischman

Prosecutor: Captain Mazy Mekonen

Defense: Atty. Ahmad Safiya

Defendant: Sharaf Tamimi - Case No. 1422/11, from Nabi-Saleh

Charge: throwing rocks

The defense says this is his first encounter with the case and he has to study it. He requests one-month postponement.

Hearing is set for 6.4.11.

If an agreement is reached, the hearing could take place earlier.

(see earlier report)

 

Defense: Atty. Tareq Bargout

Defendant: Riad Daraj - Case No. 2992/10, 17 years old

Charge: making and throwing an incendiary object.

 

Four prosecution witness have already testified, all had interrogated Riad. The defense reiterates and stresses that there will be no plea bargain and that the defendant will be the only witness for the defense. He will testify in the next hearing, set for 11.5.11.

This is Riad’s second extension of custody for the same charge. Half a year after he was released, he was arrested again. The punishment on the previous charge included a 10 months suspended sentence. This will certainly help the court to put pressure on Riad to agree to a plea bargain in his present case.

 

Defense: Atty. Akram Smara

Defendant: Hashem Hamed - Case No. 3048/10, from the village of Silwad. He has already been in detention for 9 months.

Charge: Making and throwing an incendiary object.

 

At first there was a problem, but it was soon solved: the prosecution, expecting a plea bargain, did not have the necessary evidence. Here, too, all the witnesses were interrogators who had questioned the defendant. The defendant’s mother told us that her son was arrested in the middle of the night, with ten more villagers. He’s being kept in prison in Beersheva.

The next hearing is set for 6.4.11.

 

Mili’s report

Judge: Major Amir Dahan

Defense: Atty. Avi Baram

Defendant: Idris Hasuna Jabari - Case No. 1247/11

Charge: using and selling drugs (Ecstasy and Hashish)

The judge accepts the agreement reached between the two sides.

Sentence: 8 month jail time, 2500 shekels fine or 2 months in jail, and suspended sentence of 8  months for two years for dealing drugs (except for personal use), and suspended sentence for 30 days for 3 years for using illegal substance. The agreement took into consideration the defendant’s clean record, his admission of guilt and his declared intention to quit the drug scene. The judge added that he had not included mandatory rehab because there is no such program where the defendant lives. However, he recommended that the Prison Authority offer him a rehabilitation program.

 

Defense: Atty. Firas Habib

The defendants are minors:

Amran Abed Al-Rahim Hassim Ayash – Case No. 1262/11

Fadi Walid Ahmad Sheikh – Case No. 1261/11

Majed Zaharan Ibrahim Zaharan – Case No. 1263/11

All three are 17, from the village of Bidu, accused of throwing rocks on 11.1.11. They were detained for 13 days and were released on 2500 shekel bail each.

Two witnesses testified for the prosecution: a Border Police (f.) soldier and a unit commander who were called to the site where the incident occurred. Both testified that the boys had thrown rocks at their jeep and at the fence. When they were identified, the boys fled to a wadi where they were later caught. The debate in court was about the identification of the boys caught in the wadi with the rock throwers. The witnesses were positive they identified the defendants based on their clothes; they had not seen their faces.

The hearing is scheduled to continue on 25.5.11.

  

Translation: Marganit W.

 

Judge: Major Sharon Rivlin-Ahai

Prosecutor: Captain Odelia Kardoner

 

Today, the juvenile court meets in Courtroom 5.

There are 25 cases in the docket, most of them of minors, the rest are young adults.

As in most cases lately, the most prevalent charge is throwing rocks/objects/Molotov cocktails. Other charges are under the category of “hostile terrorist activity”.

6 of the cases today ended in a plea bargain. At least one case dragged for a whole year (!) while the boy was in custody.

 

Muhammad Jamal Muhammad Erikat – Case No. 2450/10.

Resident of Abu-Dis. Born in 1994.

For a year his attorney, Iliya Theodory, has conducted an evidentiary trial, which eventually ended with the defendant accepting a revised charge sheet. Muhammad is accused of throwing rocks and objects (I don’t know the details of the indictment – H.S.) in collaboration with another boy who served as a scout.

Sentence: 24 months in jail, 24 months suspended sentence for 4 years, 2000 shekels fine.

Muhammad’s father was present in court. He speaks fluent Hebrew, having worked in construction in Israel for many years. After his son’s arrest his work permit was revoked.

 

Muhammad Daud Haled Habel- Case No. 3052/20, born in 1993.

He, too, received a stiff punishment. He was represented by Atty. Iliya Theodory.

Habel is accused of three counts involving throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails on passing vehicles on Rte. 443, in collaboration with others.

Per agreement between the sides and approved by the judge, the punishment was:

18 months in jail, 10 months suspended sentence for 4 years and 2000 shekels fine (or two months in jail).

 

Fadi Faiz Ahmed Abu Fanus– Case No. 1352/10, 14.5 years old from Yatta.

His hand is in a cast. He is accused of throwing rocks on two occasions during demonstrations in the Karmei-Tzur area.

He was arrested on 19.1.11. His partner has already been sentenced. The agreement reached by Atty. Iliya Theodory consisted of 1500 shekel fine (his co-defendant had to pay 3000 shekels fine).

The defendant’s mother is in court protesting that the family cannot afford such a sum. The judge confers with the prosecutor, apparently trying to convince her to lower the fine. The prosecutor eventually agrees to reduce the indictment to ONE violation of rock throwing, lowering the fine to 1000 shekels (or a month in jail), in addition to 45 days in jail, most of which he has already spent, and 5 months suspended sentence for 5 years.

 

Yasser Daoud Salim Slaima – Case No. 1183/11.

Accused of waving a Japanese knife at a policeman who apprehended him following a brawl.

Arrested on 7.1.11. He’s represented by Iliya Theodory.

The sentence followed an agreement and took into account the young age of the defendant. He was given 31 days in jail, 5 months suspended sentence for 4 years and a 3000 shekel fine.

 

Tiasir Yasser Ibrahim Hatab- Case NO. 4273/10, age 16, from Refugee Camp Jalazoun.

There are a couple of charges against him involving different dates: throwing Molotov cocktail in the summer of 2009 and throwing rocks at an army checkpoint in 2010. He has accepted a revised charge sheet, and the judge approved a bargain struck between the two sides, which included 15 moths jail time, a suspended sentence and 2000-shekel fine.

 

Yazan Jamal Atallah, ID401363072 - Case No.4700/10, 14 years old from Abu-Dis.

Charge: throwing rocks.

He was arrested on 4.11.10, the same night a large group of minors from Abu-Dis was arrested. Like most juveniles we see at Ofer, he too has been detained for months, until they agree to a plea bargain and the accused are willing to sign a revised charge sheet.

Yazan has been transferred from Ofer to Rimonim Prison, which has a juvenile ward.

He is represented by Atty. Akram Samara.

(see earlier reports of this case on 11.1.10, 29.1.10 and 14.2.11)

Two older sisters of the defendant are present in court.

The hearing was brief and will continue on 28.3.11, when, presumably, a plea bargain will be reached.

 

The next hearing in the case of Amir Bastami will be held on 7.3.11. He is a 15-16 years old involved in the same incident in Abu-Dis.

He too is represented by Atty. Akram Samara.

The rest of the cases we observed also ended up being postponed to later dates:

28.3.11; 29.3.11; 2.5.11.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Translation: Marganit W.

Morning and afternoon sessions

Observers: Roni Hammermann, Hagit Shlonsky and Norah Orlow (reporting) + Michal B. (visitor)

 

Hagit’s report

 

Courtroom 2 – Juvenile court for Judea area

Judge: Major Sharon Rivlin-Ahai

 

There are 12 cases in the docket, 19 of them of children, minors according to Israeli law [but not to Military law].

We have seen most of these kids in earlier stages of their trials. Some have been detained for weeks, months, even a year, and still their trials have not reached conclusion. Some are brought to trial for the second or third time in a couple of years, before they reached 18.

Two plea bargains were reached this morning, in both cases the judge acceded to both sides because of evidentiary problems. The charges (throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at vehicles) do not specify dates, only general references such as “several events in the last year or two…”

It is easy to see the connection between charges based on incrimination and “evidentiary problems”. In both cases that ended up in plea bargains the accused accepted a revised indictment, and the prison sentences they got included part of the suspended sentences that were still in force.

Atty. Muhammad Mahmoud invokes a clause in the “Juvenile Law” that allows the military court to request a memo from Social Services regarding a defendant who is a minor. The prosecution objects, but the judge sides with the defense.

 

Malek Hesham Hassan Sharif, ID 858818800 - Case No. 1189/11, 14 years old.

Defense: Atty. Muhammad Mahmoud

Malek did not accept the charges in his first interrogation and was later subjected to a second interrogation. He claims that before entering the interrogation room, he was beaten by a policeman all over his body. Only then did he admit the charges against him. He now claims that the confession was obtained under threats.

The policeman will testify on7.3.11.

 

The court usually rewards defendants who accept the charges, even when the prosecution’s case is weak (“evidentiary problems”). Admission of guilt, according to the court, saves time and justifies a reduced sentence. This is one of the ways the court encourages “plea bargains” which eliminate evidentiary trials that necessitates  summoning witnesses.

Today we observed two hearings of evidentiary trials where soldiers and police interrogators testified in the cases of minors who had testified in earlier sessions of the juvenile court.

The evidence we heard today supports the claim that eliminating the need for witnesses serves not only to save the court’s precious time: such testimonies reveal the faulty, often illegal processes used during arrests and interrogations of Palestinians minors. The testimonies put in question the veracity and legitimacy of the charges against many of the defendants. Evidentiary hearings in general, especially those of minors arrested through incrimination extracted from other minors by the police or the GSS, not only take much of the court’s precious time; many of the testimonies heard in court reveal how the military courts turn a blind eye to the malfeasance of law enforcement agencies in the Occupied Territories. It is easy to be blind and deaf when you are unaware of the facts surrounding the detention and interrogation of minors. Thus, the courts’ decisions are based on the negotiations between the sides that end in “plea bargains”.

 

Testimony of Witnesses of the Prosecution

Muhammad Mahmoud Daud Halbiya, ID 854586136 – Case No. 1512 /10,16 years old - resident of Abu Dis. Has been in detention for over a year, since 6.2.10.

Defense: Atty. Mahmoud Hassan.

Charge: Throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails.

Unlike most boys seen lately at Ofer, Muhammad was not arrested at home in the middle of the night. He was captured by soldiers together with a friend. The officers testified how they chased  him (see previous report) describing his capture as a particularly successful operation. One soldier gave a detailed account describing how Muhammad broke his ankle while jumping from a roof during the flight.

Two Border Police officers who took photos of Muhammad after his capture with their cellular phones testified today. Witness No 1, Ilan M., and witness No 5, Tal L. Each in his turn showed the court photos taken by cell phones. In them Muhammad is seen in different positions and different places, with his leg injured but not dressed at a military base, with a dressed leg on a stretcher, then at the hospital etc. There’s also a picture of his friend who was arrested with him (he was already tried) after the two were taken to the military base. The friend is holding a Molotov cocktail in his hand. The witnesses testify that the pictures were taken for possible future internal police investigation as proof that they took good care of the injured boy, who, they claim sustained the injury prior to his capture; the pictures will also prove that the fingerprints on the Molotov cocktail are the friend’s who, they claimed, was holding the device when he was captured.

In a very detailed cross-examination of the witnesses, the defense seeks to prove that the pictures were taken after the boys were brought to the base. They have been kept for a year in the cell phones of the officers who had participated in the chase, the capture and detention of the boys. Those pictures have not been given to the police or to the investigators, nor transferred to the military computer; they were kept by the officers who took part in the operation, because they anticipated being questioned about their illegal actions.

The defense maintains that the officers abused the defendant and his friend, and the pictures were taken as a cover-up.

The defense will resume its case next week, on 22.2.11.

 

Amir Samir Waja Bastami,ID 854116738 – Case No. 4701/10 -  15-16 year old, from Abu-Dis

Charge: throwing rocks (see earlier report)

Defense: Atty. Akram Samara

Examination of witnesses for the prosecution:

Witness No. 3, Sergeant-major Binyamin B. – youth interrogator at Maale Adumim Police Station, who took Amir Bastami’s statement on 27.10.10 following the arrest. The witness vaguely remembers the interrogation, not even sure in what language it was conducted, yet he points to a disk containing the interrogation where details can be checked. There is also a written memo from the interrogation night.

In cross-examination the defense asks to what extent the witness respected the rights of a minor during the interrogation.

The witness states that there are guidelines issued by the Legal Counsel of Judea-Samaria regarding Palestinian minors. Those guidelines are described in general terms and he does not have them in writing. The witness gets confused when answering the defense’ questions regarding the rules governing interrogation of minors after 10 PM, which include informing the detainee about his right to a counsel and to have his parents present. The witness states that he knows the rules and follows them automatically, including the right to consult a lawyer (defense: it is hard to find a lawyer at 2 AM…)

The defense checks the witness’s proficiency in Arabic, which reveals that the interrogation was done through an interpreter in Arabic and recorded in Hebrew.

 

Witness No. 4, is a police interrogator from Maale Adumim, Sgt.-Maj. Avi T. who took Muhammad Albasheeti’s statement (Case No. 4701/10) who, according to the prosecution, incriminated the defendant Amir Bastami. (see previous report). Albasheeti was interrogated on 4.11.10 at 4:30 AM, The interrogation was conducted in Arabic and recorded in Hebrew. The witness vehemently denies all of Albasheeti’s allegations: his claims that the statement was obtained under threats, the interrogator used harsh language, threatened him with a dog and made him sign a trumped up a statement regarding the participation of his friends in the incident.

In reply to the prosecution’s questions, the witness described how he did everything by the book, explaining to the detainee his rights, including the right to keep silence, allowed him to consult his brother, writing down the entire testimony, adding that the detainee signed it of his own volition.

The witness explains that the interrogation took place at night, soon after the arrest. Stone and bomb throwers are usually interrogated at night for security reasons, to prevent riots and confrontations in the Arab villages. Soon after arrival, the interrogation takes place, “so as not to deprive him of his liberty,” says Sgt.-Maj. Avi T. (meaning, it is for the detainee’s benefit that he is interrogated before dawn, after a sleepless night, without food or drink…)

The prosecutor asks about the statement given by another defendant from Abu-Dis, Yazan Atallah (Case No 4700/10) who was arrested and interrogated on the same night as Amir Bastami and Muhammad Albasheeti. The witness rejects Yazan’s allegation that the interrogator threatened him with blows, forcing him to confess. He also denies Yazan’s claim that the interrogator added names not mentioned by the detainee and made him sign the statement by intimidation (see report from 11.11.10)

In cross-examination it becomes apparent that the witness Avi T. sometimes serves as a juvenile interrogator even though he is not qualified to do so. He does not remember exactly how he treated the boys that night, but claims everything was approved by the Interrogation Officer at the station. He states firmly that he always observes the rights of the interrogee, reading the questions and answers in Arabic while typing in Hebrew. The video recording is kept for only 30 hours and cannot be reconstituted later. Thus, as soon as the interrogation is over, it is burned onto a disk and kept for future record. But the disk of Albasheeti’s interrogation does not exist. It has disappeared. The witness cannot explain what went wrong, but claims that he activated the recorder and that the interrogation was recorded.

In reply to the defense, the witness explains some of the methods he used to extract from Albasheeti incriminations of other boys. He used information obtained from the intelligence office, where boys are brought by the police and the GSS before they are interrogated by the police. Once an intelligence officer has interrogated the detainees, he passes to the police interrogator all the information he has obtained during his interrogation.

The defense explains to the witness that in Yazan’s interrogation tape, the interrogator does not tell Yazan what he is suspected of. He also throws Yazan’s father out of the room claiming that the latter interferes with the interrogation.

The witness replies that he was following his commander’s orders and whatever he did during the interrogation is on record.

The defense counters that Yazan’s interrogation is imperfectly recorded. The recording does not seem to start at the beginning, and from watching and listening to the video it seems that there was an earlier interrogation. Perhaps that was just an “interview” not an interrogation, which does not require video recording.

 

From questions the judge addresses to the witness it transpires that indeed there was a preliminary interrogation prior to the one conducted by the police, and that it was not recorded. Important or relevant information collected in that preliminary interrogation is reported to the police interrogator, if necessary, in writing.

In Albasheeti’s case neither was recorded. Interrogator Manny, mentioned by Albasheeti in his hearing (see report from 7.2.11) apparently was the one interrogating him (the “bad cop”) and he passed on info to Avi T. who then talked him into signing the document.

We’ll hear the details in the next hearing on 7.3.11 when two other prosecution witnesses will testify: Alon Cohen and the interrogator Manny.

 

 -----------------------------------------------------------  

Norah’s report:

 

Courtroom 1

Judge:  Lieut.-Col. Ronen Atzmon

Prosecutor: Captain Eshhar Erez

Defense: Atty. Gaby Lasky

 

Defendant: Muhammad Ibrahim Ahmad Abu Rahme (nicknamed Abu-Nizar), ID 954903555, resident of Bil’in.

Case No. 1706/10. Released on bail.

The official charge is disturbing the public peace, but the intention is to charge Abu Rahme with incitement. (See earlier report from 20.12.10 on this case).

This is an evidentiary hearing. Witness No. 2, Halil Yassin has been summoned to testify. He is one of two minors that two years ago were kidnapped from their beds in the middle of the night so they would “sing” – and indeed they sang loudly in their interrogation and incriminated dozens of Bil’in residents who are active in the struggle against the separation fence and against the occupation.

At the time Halil was 16 years old. Today, appearing as a prosecution witness he is 18 years old. He is in prisoner garb since he has recently been arrested on another charge. Twice he did not arrive to testify when summoned before the court.

Today, in reply to the prosecutor’s question, he states that he is detained on charges of rock throwing, the same as last time.

The young man looks wretched: he whispers his answers, his eyes downcast. Most of his answers consist of “I don’t remember,” I don’t know him”. He denies most of the things he said in his interrogation.

Thus, for example, when asked to identify the defendant sitting in front of him he says: “Someone from my village… I don’t know his name… Everyone knows him. I know him as Abu-Nizar, not by any other name… I don’t know how old he is… Don’t know his family…” etc.

The prosecutor tries to refresh his memory by quoting from his statement, asking if what is written there is true. The witness says he can’t read, and the interpreter reads the statement, handwritten by the interrogator .

Witness: When I was first taken in, I was 16. I don’t remember what I said. What’s written here is not true.”

Thus it went on for a long time, “Don’t remember, don’t recognize the man in the picture, don’t know the members of the Bil’in committee, don’t remember taking part in the Friday demonstrations in Bil’in, don’t remember throwing rocks…”

Again, he denies what is written in the statement, except what refers to himself, i.e., it is true that he threw rocks at soldiers.

 

In cross-examination, the defense asks Halil to describe the events of the night of his arrest and interrogation. As it happens, that night and the day after, spent at the police station and at Ofer Detention center, are etched in Halil’s memory in all their gory details (see details in protocol - Hebrew).

In his summation, the prosecutor moves to subpoena Police officer Sharif Katish who took the statement on 23.6.09.

He also wants to summon Witness No. 3, Kamel Hatib, for the third time.

Additional evidentiary hearing is set for 21.3.11, when those two witnesses will testify.