Separation Barrier

Translation: Marganit W.

We came specifically to observe the appeal by Ashraf Abu Rahmah from Bil’in, who is accused of throwing rocks during a Friday demonstration. Bil’in is not Tahrir Square and certainly not Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv, where politically neutral activists have become overnight heroes, and return peacefully to their homes the day after the demonstration. By contrast, the Abu Rahmeh family, who conduct non-violent protests against the illegal seizure of their land, continue to struggle, despite the suffering and bereavement they have endured.

 The son, Bassam (April 2009) – See B’tselem report

The daughter, Jawaher (the beginning of 2009) – See Haaretz report

They are both Ashraf’s siblings who were killed by the Israeli army during Friday demonstrations. Ashraf himself was lucky: he was only injured by a soldier who shot him at close range – by order of his commander – while he was standing, shackled and blindfolded, by an army jeep. See The Shooting in Ni’lin on YouTube.

The Israeli oppression continues: At the end of Friday demonstration on 21.10.11, Ashraf was arrested when the army invaded the village. Perhaps as retaliation for the penalty imposed on those who had shot him? His trial took place on 27.11.11 at Ofer Military Court before Justice Captain Zvi Frankel who decided to extend his detention until the conclusion of the proceedings. The judge rejected the defense’s motion for alternative to imprisonment, which prompted today’s appeal.

 Appellant: Ashraf Abu Rahmah – ID 906435698, Case No. 2448/11

Judge: Colonel Yoram Haniel

Defense: Atty. Gaby Lasky

Military Prosecutor: Eran Levi

 The discussion focused on the defense’s objection to testimonies by 2 soldiers who testified for the prosecution and which formed the basis for the indictment. The defense presented affidavits from witnesses who had been present at the demonstration as well as video clips, all testifying that Ashraf did not throw rocks. The defense claimed that “someone kidnapped the appellant from the scene and brought him to the police… we have no evidence as to who arrested him, where and why he was detained…“ When the judge asked for the prosecutor’s response, the latter said, “Based on the material in the file, I do not know.”

The defense said this is ground for unconditional release. Moreover, Ashraf was detained for two hours after the time the witnesses claim they saw him throw rocks, which was when the military jeeps entered the village. The video presented to the court shows the jeeps passing by Ashraf without arresting him. Only when he ran after them, waving a flag, was he nabbed and arrested. This is all recorded on tape.

The soldiers’ testimony is baffling. First, they stood behind a (new) wall 9 -meters tall, which prevented them from seeing the demonstrators, Moreover, while the commander claimed that he was able to identify Ashraf from a distance of 100-150 meters, under gas clouds, the other soldier testified that he saw the appellant from 5-10 meters, which is also inconceivable because of another obstacle – about 20 meters wide – that separated the demonstrators from the wall. Plus, there was a group of soldiers standing roughly at the same spot on the other side of the wall: where is their testimony?

The defense pointed out that there is a pillbox with a camera in Bil’in. A (female) observer testified that all the demonstrations are recorded there. The defense had requested to see the filmed demonstration, but to no avail. To the judge’s inquiry, the prosecutor said, “I have no answer at the moment.”

The defense protests Justice Zvi Frankels decision to accept the prosecution’s questionable proof and his disregard for her (the attorney’s) depositions, and, which is worse, for the personal circumstances of the defendant. She requested an alternative to detention, which will guarantee that Ashraf does not participate in Friday demonstrations. 

----------------------------------- 

                                             

A few days later, we were told that the appeal was rejected. Ashraf Abu Rahmah will stay in detention until the conclusion of the proceedings.

See article in Haaretz re Ashraf’s detention.

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

In the yard we met parents from Daheisha Refugee Camp. Their son, Ismail Faraj, age 19, was arrested 3 weeks ago, on 10.10.11. The army kidnapped (not arrested) him at 4:30 AM, as is their wont. The parents needed the help of the Moked le’Haganat Ha’prat to find out that the son was detained at Ashkelon Prison. At Ofer they were made to wait for hours for a hearing that lasted 3 minutes. They were allowed only to see him, not talk or touch, for just 3 minutes. His remand was extended, naturally. On the phone later, the mother told me that Ismail is a law student. He had been incriminated by someone, and the family has no idea what the charge against him is.  

Translation: Marganit W.

 Morning and Afternoon

Courtroom 4

Judge: Etty Adar

Four defendants are in the dock. The charge: using false documents. Behind this sanitized phrase lurks a reality full of desperation, fraud, exploitation, dispossession and deception.

Every Palestinian working in Israel needs a work permit. Only an Israeli employer can apply for such permit. For this privilege of employing workers from the Occupied Territories the state exacts from the employer between 1200 and 1500 shekels a month for each employee. In my experience, it is the workers themselves that pay this sum. On one hand, we have a huge reservoir of young people willing to do any work under any condition in order to subsist; on the other hand, the employers are well aware of this situation and they need workers. The state of Israel oversees all this and profits from this state of affairs: the monthly payments remitted by tens of thousands of Palestinians for the privilege of being exploited generate a huge income. In addition to having to pay, the workers sleep in the fields in summer and in parking lots and warehouses in winter, they wait interminably at checkpoints and every six months they have to renew the permit. This leads to manipulation, extortion and attempts to recruit collaborators, as well as abusing and intimidating the frightened persons who don’t even know what’s written in the permits since they are all written in Hebrew. Now back to the four defendants at Ofer.

This is what I heard from the father of two of the defendants:

-There are people who come and get the workers. They say, ‘Come work for us, we’ll get you permits and you’ll pay for them’.

-Jews or Arabs?

-Arabs from Beersheva. They took them to work in agriculture. They work for 1-2 months. For each permit they paid 1500 shekels. Then they said, ‘The work is over, we’ll take you somewhere else to work’. They took them in their car, but those permits were for 6 months. Then they said the price was 1800 shekels a month. The workers did not know if the permits were fake or not. They worked in Jerusalem, then Tel Aviv with someone from Abu Ghosh. He took them to work and left. They were stopped at the Kastel. They showed their permits and were told the permits were forgeries. They said they did not know: they had paid for those permits. Two months ago they were taken to Atarot and from there to detention at Ofer.

In court the boys were protesting loudly. They argued with Atty. Daoud Azi and denied the allegations.

One of the detainees, Tarek Muhammad Salem Ad’is (Case No. 3838/11, ID 850168543) serves as spokesman for the group.

His insistence prevented a plea bargain so an evidentiary trial was set for Sunday 25.9.11 before Justice Dalya Kaufman. This did not work. The attorney reached an agreement with the prosecution: they will serve a penalty of 4-6 months starting with the day of arrest. Thus, having been deceived, abused and bamboozled they are now sent to jail. Israel will never again grant them permits to be exploited for its benefit.

On Sunday, 25.9.11 we spoke to a father of one of the detainees They will serve time between 2-4 months and pay a cumulative fine of 11.000 shekels.

 

On television a commentator on Arab Affairs (who probably spends most of his time in Ramallah) reported that the West Bank is experiencing an “economic boom”. The eight detainees I saw in court today – charged with using forged papers and “leaving the area without permit” – never heard of this economic boom and would have certainly wondered why they were not part of it.

Take for instance Saed Tawfik Zir (Case No. 4001/11, ID 901183772) stopped at Hizma Checkpoint with a fake permit using a fake name. Did he know the permit was a forgery?

At A-ram Checkpoint “certain people” offer to arrange permits for passers-by. Saed gave one of them 1000 shekels and a photo and in return got an entrance permit into Israel. At Hizma Checkpoint he was caught and detained and later confessed. An agreement between Atty. Nubani and the prosecution was approved by Justice Major Amir Dahan who handed down the sentence: 91 days of time served, 2000 shekels fine or two more months, plus suspended sentence for one month. When I left the court, the defendant’s parents followed me and asked for help. They are both sick and helpless. They don’t have 2000 shekels, what can they do? The son is the only provider in the family.

Leaving aside the pain, the shame and the guilt, why doesn’t the state of Israel, with its sophisticated information technologies, arrest those thieving dealers? Everyone knows where they operate and what they do. The state arrests and punishes the victims while the crooks continue their business unimpeded. This is the aim of the legal system of the occupation: to keep the wheels turning; let economic distress push the unemployed and the hungry into the clutches of crooks who would not have been able to mass produce fake permits and unwilling collaborators without the collusion of the Israeli authorities. The system will continue to churn fines for coffers of the state.

 

Courtroom 2

Judge: Major Amir Dahan

Defense: Atty. Haled Araj

Defendant: Zuheib Jamal Joda Hushia (Case No. 3512/11,ID 852558873)

Charge: Membership and activity.

The defendant is now a student of history and social sciences. There is no proof of his continued membership in an unauthorized organization - a Koran study group – from 2008 until his arrest.

For studying the Koran he is sentenced to 7 months in jail, 2 month suspended sentence and 2000 shekels fine.

 

The hearing in the case of Bassem Tamimi took place in the afternoon before Justice Etty Adar. Present in court were Bassem’s wife, another relative, members of Anarchists Against the Fence who support the Nabi Salah detainees, a reporter from Der Spiegel accompanied by two soldiers from the Army Spokesman’s Office (one was Yair Netanyahu [ the PM’s son] accompanied by two guards), and two officials from the German Consulate in Ramallah.

The entire session dealt with future hearing dates: 25.9.11, 16.10.11, 24.10.11, 26.10.11, 2.11.11, 16.11.11.

 

  

Translation: Marganit W.

 

Summed up briefly: there was no trial.

 

Judge: Etty Adar

Prosecutor: Michael Avitan

Defense: Labib Habib – NOT PRESENT

 

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

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

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

 

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

For details see

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

Translation: Marganit W.

Morning and afternoon sessions

We came to hear the mini-trial concerning the admissibility of the interrogation of the boy Islam Dar Ayoub Tamimi, as well as an appeal of the court’s decision to remand Bassam Tamimi in custody until the conclusion of the proceedings. Both defendants are residents of the village of Nabi Saleh.

 

In between, we also peeked into other courtrooms:

 

In Courtroom 7 there were more than 60 traffic cases in the docket; they were processed at lightening speed, filling the state’s coffers.

 

In Courtroom 2, as is the custom on Mondays, mostly minors were tried in front of Justice Major Sharon Rivlin-Ahai. Out of 29 cases in the docket, 18 concerned “rock throwing” by minors.

 

Toward noon, the mini-trial began regarding the admissibility of the interrogation of Islam Saleh Dar Ayoub [Tamimi], ID 402197834 -Case No. 1361/11. The defendant is 14 years old.

Judge: Major Sharon Rivlin-Ahai

Prosecutor: Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Atty. Gaby Lasky

 

The reason for the delay this morning was that Islam and his parents were detained at the compound gate and were refused entry. When Atty. Lasky intervened, the father and son were let in, but not the mother. The guard who detained the family told the judge that indeed he had refused to let the mother in and sent her home. The reason: she “caused a disturbance at the gate”. A furious Atty. Lasky said she would lodge a complaint against the imperious soldier.

Islam came in limping: he had broken his leg the day before at home where he is under house arrest.

Prosecution Witness No. 1 was Atty. Lymor Goldstein, who declared that since he was about to testify, he was resigning from the case.

The interrogation focused on Goldstein’s attempts to locate the accused once he had found out about his arrest… and then on his attempt to meet with his client BEFORE his interrogation, an attempt that failed, despite the numerous phone calls he placed to the police station informing the police that he was on his way: Inspector Jalal Awwida [who had already testified in this case – see report from 21.3.11] prevented him from attending the interrogation, invoking an injunction against a meeting between detainee and attorney.

The witness testified that when he saw his client after the interrogation he found him distraught and in very poor condition. He was crying and told Atty. Goldstein that he had been beaten by the soldiers, and kept in a jeep following his arrest.

In cross-examination, the prosecutor queried Goldstein’s psychological expertise. He showed the court two film strips allegedly proving that the boy had not been distraught.

Then the defense presented the court an opinion by a child psychologist, based on professional literature, detailing the effect of detention on minors. She also wanted to present a special UN report by Professor Norak regarding the Convention Against Torture, which cites international law governing detention and children’s rights.

The prosecutor’s response: The cited opinion does not relate directly to the defendant’s case.

The prosecutor moves to call the expert himself to testify.

The judge’s decision: In view of the disagreement about the expert opinion, she sides with the prosecution: the experts need to be deposed. The defense can do so, if it wishes.

The defense asked to set a date for the defendant’s mother to testify, as well as for the expert witnesses.

The mother’s testimony was set for 14.6.11.

(See further details of the hearing in the protocol - Hebrew)

See also Amira Hass’s article in Haaretz on 23.5.11.

 

Courtroom 3 – Appeals court

Judge: Sgt.- Major Ronen Atzmon

Prosecutor: ??

Defense: Atty. Habib Labib

 

After the lunch break  we attended a hearing in the appeal of a “remand extension until the conclusion of the proceedings” (from 17.4.11) of Bassam Tamimi, age 44, ID 959225640 - Case No. 2058/11.

The defendant was one of several people incriminated by Islam Dar Ayoub. He was arrested on 24.3.11.

(See earlier report from 31.3.11 as well as the indictment – Hebrew - and a post in the site of the

Committee of the Popular Struggle]

 

The defense’s main arguments: the testimonies by 3 soldiers, claiming that Bassam Tamimi incited and gave orders to use violence during the weekly demonstrations [against land confiscation in Nabi Saleh], lack evidentiary base – there is no photographic documentation or recorded phone calls that can prove the charge of incitement.

The defense also protested the way the incriminator [Islam] was arrested and interrogated, insisting that the defendant’s name had been obtained from the boy by coercion.

 

The judge listened politely to the arguments, then several days later handed down his decision: the appeal was rejected – Bassam Tamimi will remain in custody until the conclusion of the proceedings.

 

  

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.

We attended the final segments of several remand extensions in different courtrooms, while waiting for the hearings in the cases of Bassem Tamimi and Naji Tamimi from Nabi Saleh, which took place only after lunch break.

 

Courtroom 4

Judge: Major Arye Durani

Prosecutor: ?

Defense: Atty. Ahmad Safiya, representing three minors (one 15 years old) members of the same family, accused of throwing objects. This was an arraignment hearing. Several family members were present in the audience.

 

Sahar Hir Alla Abed Alhafez Hamed – Case No. 1964/11

Hasin Abed Aluahad Muhammad Hamed – Case No. 1963/11

Majaj Muhammad Majad Hamed – Case No. 1966/11

The defense requested and was granted a deferment.

Hearing set for 15.5.11.

 

Of the 23 cases before the court, two dealt with sexual offences and were tried behind closed doors.

The attorney representing the defendants explained that the trial takes place in a military court because the crime was committed in the Occupied Territories. The PA court, which is also authorized to try such cases tends to treat sex offenses in a much harsher way, so it is preferable for such violators to come before a military court.

Three cases in the docket dealt with membership and activity, others with various offenses such as driving without a license, traffic violations, illegal sojourn in Israel, property violations, possession of combat materiel etc.

 

Naji Muhammad Abed Allatif Tamimi – Case No. 1955/11, arrested on 5.3.11 (see earlier report of 13.3.11).

Main charge: incitement.

Defense: Atty. Tareq Bargout.

The prosecution states that a revised charge sheet has been prepared with additional witnesses.

The defense requests time to study the changes.

Arraignment hearing set for 15.5.11.

(see protocol of the hearing  - Hebrew) 

Courtroom 7

Judge: Major Menahem Lieberman

 

Naji Arad Case No. 1834/11, from the village Bani Zaid, 19 years old, arrested on 3.4.11 at the military checkpoint at the entrance to Nabi Saleh village. Since the initial interrogation – when he denied the allegations of rock throwing and membership in an unlawful organization – he has not been interrogated. The judge reprimands the police for holding a suspect in custody without interrogation and orders the prosecution to prepare an indictment within 24 hours. Yet he extends the remand by 3 days because tomorrow (Monday) no remand extensions hearings take place.

Defense attorney Nery Ramati requests that the hearing be set for 21.4.11. The judge accedes.

 

Courtroom 1

Judge: ?

Bassem Tamimi (File No. 1562/11)

Atty. Anan (?), substituting for Atty. Labib Habib, requests deferment of the remand hearing until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Hearing is set for Tuesday,12.4.11.

Today, 17.4.11, Bassam Tamimi was remanded in custody until the conclusion of the proceedings.

The trial is to start on8.5.11.

 

Outside, in the compound, we spoke to some family members, waiting to be called into the courtroom. Among them was a bewildered and frightened woman who had just realized that her son’s hearing had already taken place and she had not been called in. She now tries to find a way to see her son before he is sent back into detention. She does not know the name of his attorney, and only after the trial was over did she find out it is Atty. Abu Ahmed. Apparently, the attorney never spoke to the mother and did not bother to invite her to attend. Perhaps he did not even talk to the defendant he was supposed to represent. We often see attorneys who meet with their ‘clients’ for the first time in court during the trial.

A man here for the trial of his son was walking around upset, looking for help: his wife was denied entrance to the waiting area by security guards. We were able to involve the attorney representing the son, and shortly afterwards the guards deigned to allow the woman to join her husband in the waiting area. It turns out the reason for the delay was that the woman had cursed… (!)

  

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.

Morning and Afternoon Sessions 

 

Courtroom 2, Juvenile court

Judge: Major Sharon Rivlin-Ahai

Prosecutor: Atty. Captain Michael Avitan

 

Hagit’s Report

There are 21 cases in the docket today. In 16 of them the main charge is throwing rocks, and incendiary objects. About ten of the defendants have been in custody for at least 6 months for violations allegedly carried out in 2010 or earlier.

In the first hour of the morning session 6 young boys were brought in. In all of these cases an extension was granted and dates were set for continuation.

 

Muhammad Mahmud Diab Harfush – Case No. 3773/10, 16.5 years old from Harbata.

He accepts a revised indictment for throwing rocks – with a friend - at Route 443.

Among the charges is also: a plan to throw rocks, which did not come to fruition, as well as the making of an incendiary object. The violations were committed over several months in 2010.

Atty. Safiya also represents this defendant’s brother, who apparently was arrested with him. Details will be given in the next hearing.

 

Muhammad Eid Yussuf Badran – Case No. 2705/10

This was supposed to be the concluding hearing, but the judge objected to the plea bargain, which involved replacing Atty.Muhammad Shaheen with Akram Samara. The agreement was made according to the procedures set by the Palestinian Prisoner’s Club and with the prosecution’s consent, but the judge determined that at this late stage of the process the defense’s replacement was done without notifying the defendant and his family; consequently, she did not release Atty. Shaheen from representing the defendant.

A memorandum hearing was set for 4.4.11.

 

At 11 the boys sitting in the dock were ushered out and instead Islam Salah Dar Ayoub – Case No. 1367/11 was brought in. His hearing continued after lunch break. His father was present in the court.

The defense was Atty. Gaby Lasky.

Following Justice Captain Etty Adar’s decision (given in a separate hearing) to release Islam to his parents’ custody on 5000-shekel bail and 5000 shekel third party guarantee, the prosecution moved to halt the proceedings. Atty. Gaby Lasky objected to the motion and to the prosecution’s attempt to add restrictions to the release (such as: reporting periodically to the police and insuring that the defendant and his family be always available by phone).

The judge decided to release the defendant and to allow the prosecution to appeal.

The prosecution appealed, but until today the appellate court has not handed down a decision.

 

Norah’s Report

After lunch there was an additional hearing in the mini-trial of the boy Islam Dar Ayoub (Tamimi), from the village of Nabi Salah. The court again examined the defense’s claim that Islam’s statement was obtained by the police interrogators through illegal means and is therefore inadmissible. (See earlier report that includes testimony by prosecution witnesses from Maale Adumim police station: both claimed they were following their commander’s instructions).

Today, the commanding officer himself, Inspector Jalal Awida, was summoned to testify for the prosecution. He was asked the same questions posed to the earlier witnesses – and the answers, too, were the same.

Yes, the boy was informed of his right to remain silent.

Yes, the atmosphere throughout the interrogation was pleasant and friendly.

No, Islam’s parents were not present, but it is not the custom to have Palestinian parents present during interrogations: they live too far away and it is too complicated.

No, the witness is not responsible to what happens before the interrogation (arresting a child at 2 AM, keeping him in a jeep for hours, blindfolded and bound, preventing him from going to the bathroom, depriving him of sleep… and whatever else that happened there. The fact is the boy arrived at the police station in a wretched state, and when the interrogation began, at 9 AM, he must have been exhausted and scared to death).

The commander affirmed that he had given the order not to wait for the attorney Lymor Goldstein who had requested to be present at the interrogation.

“There was an order to begin the interrogation, so the interrogation began.”

Thus, he too was merely following orders from his superior officer.

The superior officer is Yitzhak Shilo, head of Interrogation Division of Judea and Samaria. He was summoned to testify a week later, on 29.3.11 (Unfortunately, we were unable to attend so the report is based on the hearing’s protocol in Hebrew.)

Yitzhak Shilo affirms that he gave the order not to wait for the attorney explaining:

“…The suspect was arrested by the IDF forces. As per our request… he was brought to us for interrogation. That morning, during his interrogation, he admitted participating in disturbances and incriminated others [emphasis mine – N.O.]… The attorney came to Headquarters and asked to meet with him. The interrogation team informed me that the attorney was at the gate… and that the accused was starting to admit to the charges and to incriminate others. Since the interrogation was ongoing and was as yet inconclusive, I determined that if I allowed the attorney to meet the suspect, it would seriously compromise the interrogation. Thus, I instructed the interrogators to tell the attorney that I am delaying his meeting with his client… and that eventually I would allow him to see the client…”

The meeting eventually took place at 14:30, after the 5-hour interrogation was over.

Shilo neglected to mention in his testimony that the attorney had telephoned the station before the interrogation began and asked to delay it until his arrival.

 

In his testimony on 21.3.11 Jalal Awida testified regarding the same question posed by the prosecutor:

Q: The defense claims that the defendant’s right to an attorney was violated…

A: It was not violated. Had he requested to consult an attorney, we would have immediately consented.

This is a very strange answer. Does a 14 year old know his rights? After all, they did not inform him about his right to consult an attorney.

 

What did Islam do during the 2 hour hearing today? He sat on the bench, his head slumped on his knees, covered by his hands – either asleep or simply refusing to hear the humiliating story or watch the video of the interrogation that the defense presented in order to prove that the minor had not been notified about his right to remain silent. He sat scrunched on the bench, not even looking at his father or at the people who came to support him. A 14 year old is capable of understanding the meaning of having incriminated many villagers who are now being arrested one by one and prosecuted. Even if he named them under heavy pressure, it must be very hard to live with the knowledge that he was made to incriminate his neighbors.

 

(see detailed protocol of today’s hearing in Hebrew)

 

  

Translation: Marganit W.

 

Courtroom 7: remand extensions

Judge: Moshe Levy

There are 26 cases in the docket. Most of the detainees this morning are young. Some look like minors.

Muatez Mussa Ahmad Banat – Case No. 731/11. A school kid.

Charge: throwing rocks at Israeli vehicles near his village, on 3.6.11 (together with other boys). The incident resulted in broken windows in one car and in damage to others.

The prosecution requests detention until the conclusion of the proceedings. It maintains that the evidence is conclusive, based on incriminatory testimony. Two other youths who took part in the incident were also detained and sentenced to 7-8 months in jail.

The judge noticed that Muatez is using crutches and demands an explanation from his attorney, Jalid Ihab. No explanation is supplied. It later transpires that one of the drivers of the vehicles, claiming he feared for his life, shot at the defendant and injured him. 6 months later the defendant pressed charges against the settler at the police station. This led to his arrest about 8 months after the incident. Atty. Ihab argued that the delay and the defendant’s condition (as a result of the injury) make him a low security risk, requiring no incarceration.

The defendant denies the allegations.

The judge agrees that the defendant is not a flight risk since he went to the police to lodge a complaint by his own initiative. However, the judge argues that the security risk does apply: it was not just a case of throwing rocks but of inflicting damage by a large [how many exactly? M.M.] group of people. Add to this the testimony of his partners in crime who linked the defendant to the incident, and the conclusion is: detention until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Arraignment session set for 30.3.11.

There were no family members in the courtroom. Muatez kept looking at the door waiting for his mother (?) to come. As soon as the hearing was over, the GSS officer urged him to leave, pulling him outside.

 

Wassam Ramadan Darwish Abu Ramuz – Case No. 1756/11, 14.5 years old, from  Hebron.

Defense: Atty. Noubani

The prosecution requests detention until the conclusion of the proceedings. The defendant was incriminated by prosecution witnesses (2 and 3), soldiers who watched him from a nearby rooftop; they recognized the defendant by his clothes, which matched those he wore at his arrest.

The defense objects. There is only one charge, based on incrimination. The defendant denies the allegation insisting that he did not throw rocks. It is not clear from the statements how far the rocks were thrown and if there was eye contact. The incrimination is full of holes. It is not clear what part the defendant played. He has no prior record, meaning he poses no security risk. His age, too, should be taken into account.

The judge notes that no family member is present. Atty. Noubani says he did not check to see if any family member arrived.

The judge finds for the defense: In normal circumstances the charge would lead to detention because of security risk. However, in view of the defendant’s age and since his collaborator was not charged (the prosecutor explains that due to BP mistake, the detainee has disappeared – the case is under investigation), he releases the defendant under the following conditions:

1. 5000-shekel bail. 2.  third party guarantee for 10,000 shekels. 3. The defendant will report to the police station near his home every Sunday.

Arraignment session is set for 4.4.11 in Justice Sharon Rivlin-Ahai’s juvenile court.

The prosecution requested a 72-hour delay in carrying out the decision; the judge granted 24 hours to allow for an appeal.

We were told later by the defense attorney, that the prosecution decided  n o t  to appeal.  But the attorney did not know, whether the kid had indeed been released on bail. He no longer represents him. 

 

Abed Alrahman Muhammad Ahmed – Case No. 1863/11, 20 years old.

Defense: Atty. Abu Ahmed.

The prosecution requests remand extension until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Charge: infringement (or an attempt at infringement) of the law: on 7.3.11 he tried to enter Israel without a permit, using someone else’s ID card.

The defense objects. The defendant has an entry and work permit to work at Mishor Adumim area. The authorities conduct an examination before issuing such permits, especially for someone as young as this 20 year old. Thus, there is no security risk. As for flight risk, the defense suggests that Israeli citizens vouch for him and post bail to assure he reports to trial.

Judge’s decision: The appellate court has ruled in earlier cases that this violation warrants detention because of the flight risk. I see no reason to deviate from this ruling. The defendant tried to enter Jerusalem while his permit was limited to Mishor Adumim, thus the risk flight remains, and he is remanded in custody until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Arraignment session is set for 6.4.11 before Justice Dahan.

 

Sami Omar Abu Gouda– Case No. 1853/11, 14 years old.

Defense: Abu Ahmed

Charge: throwing objects

By agreement between the sides, and in view of the evidence, including the defendant’s admission of guilt to the police and the officers’ testimony, the defendant poses a security risk, despite his young age. Hence, detention until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Arraignment session set for 4.4.11 before Justice Sharon Rivlin-Ahai.

 

Abdelhadi Salah Muhammad Abu Turki– Case No.1833/11

Defense: Abu Ahmed

Prosecutor: The defendant was captured at the checkpoint of the Cave of the Fathers (in Hebron) with a knife in his possession. He did not surrender the knife to the security personnel; it was detected by the magnetic detector. He was asked to go through the machine twice, and only when he lifted his shirt was the knife discovered. Its blade is 9 cm long. Thus, a security risk exists, and the prosecutor requests detention until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Defense: the defendant found the knife, and forgot all about it by the time he reached the checkpoint. He made no movement indicating he wanted to use the knife. He claims the knife  was in the pocket of his coat, which he took off for the security check. If the hearing is at the end of the month, his detention will exceed the customary period for such cases, in case of conviction. (the defense cites a precedent supporting this argument).

The judge’s decision: there is clear potential for danger in possessing a ‘cold’ weapon such as a knife, especially these days [a reference to the massacre at Itamar – M.M]. In a case where the accused tried to conceal a knife, there is argument for security risk, hence remand extension until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Arraignment session set for 23.3.11 (the date was a concession to the defense that claimed the remand may lengthen the incarceration, if he is convicted).

 

Awad Abdul Hamdi Halil Abu Zlata– Case No. 1814/11

Defense: Abu Ahmed

Charge: possession of combat materiel (guns, cartridges, military equipment) and refusal to report to the police.

The defense acknowledges the evidence, but objects to the detention.

The incident happened in 2008.

Decision: There is no contention of the details in the charge sheet and in the defendant’s statement to the police. The charge of possession warrants security risk. The defense argues against detention because the violations were committed at the end of 2008. Since then, many attempts were made to arrest the accused and interrogate him, but he managed to evade the police. The reasons for his evasions are not convincing. There is also reason to consider him a flight risk. Hence, detention until the conclusion of the legal proceedings.

Arraignment session set for 30.3.11

 

Hagit’s report:

Courtroom 5: remand extensions

 

Judge: Lieut.-Col. Ami Navon

Prosecutor: Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Tarek Bargout

 

Naji Tamimi, one of the leaders of the popular struggle against the separation fence at Nebi Salah, 47 years old, was arrested on the night of 6.3.11 on charges of incitement to throw rocks over many years - since the second Intifada.

The prosecution bases its case on incrimination by a boy, Islam Dar Ayoub [Tamimi] from 23.1.11. It requests remand extension to prepare the indictment.

The defense requests an alternative to detention, adding that many people are willing to post bail for him.

The judge decides on a 5-day remand extension, until 17.3.11.

Naji’s family and a group of supporters are present in court.

 

The prosecutor carries a gun on his shoulder. I have never seen an armed prosecutor in court before. This is rather horrible. I did not have a chance to investigate this new phenomenon.

 

 

  

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.