Courthouse in Ofer 04.07.06Observers: Hagit S., Neta E.Translation: Erez L.Courtroom 7Judge: Oustraicher, Lieutenant Colonel (volunteer reservist)Morning: 13 detainees were brought in, 2 who did not have attorneys presents, and one whose case file was not there and so discussion of his case was postponed. We asked the judge whether it’s possible to begin proceedings without the presence of defense counsel. The judge stated that it is possible: “I consider the evidence and then reserve the right to re-consider it in the future presence of a defense attorney.”1) The accused – Achmed Nimer. Pleads not guilty (the suspicions against him are never stated). No attorney represents him. An attorney, present in the courtroom, Ismail Atawill volunteers to represent him. The continuation of his case will be heard on 27.08.06.2) Partial confession – giving shelter. Attorney Atawill states that he doesn’t know if he is representing this detainee. Nevertheless, an agreement is reached between the defense attorney and the prosecution. The case will continue on 27.08.06 before judge Tirosh.3) The detainee is present. His file is missing.4) Yusuf abu Duchuf. His attorney is supposed to arrive at 13.00. The judge is not prepared to wait, and accepts the prosecution’s suggestion to detain him until the end of the proceedings. The case will continue in the judge’s Tirosh courtroom on 27.08.06.5) Four men accused. Their attorney, Atawill is prepared to agree to a deal for all four. The prosecutor request detention until the end of all proceedings. The four accused men are led outside during the discussion. When they are returned to the courtroom, the accusation is made clear: stealing cables. Their attorney claims that the evidence listed in the court docket is not correct. The tractor belonging to the four broke down near their home, and the tried to tow it. The army arrived and detained them without taking any fingerprints from the cables themselves. They had borrowed the cables from a Druze man in their village. The prosecution had yet to bring fingerprint evidence to support their accusation. The attorney cited other problems with the case docket that we didn’t catch. The judge decided that there was a basis for conviction in the case file, but stated: “I cannot decide whether there exists a threat of “danger.” It was decided that the detainees could be released on bail, as long as that bail was sufficient to guarantee their return to trial. The sum decided upon was 15,000 IS each. The accused and their family who were present in the courtroom were shocked by this high-price of bail demanded. It is doubtful whether they have the means to obtain this kind of money. The trail will continue on 27.08.06.6) Detainee (name omitted). Attorney, Ya’akov. There is an agreement to continue detention for another six days.7) Detainee Jamal el Kalil. Attorney present (though we didn’t catch his name). The prosecution requests detention until the end of proceedings. The accusation: driving a car in an authorized area. The accused has a record of a similar offense for which he did not present himself in court. The judge decided: “This is not a case in which it is necessary to continue his detention. Both of his cases should be adjudicated immediately, and he should be released.”8) Accused, Machmud. Attorney present. The attorney requests a delay of three days in order to learn the details of the case.9) Accused, Basam. Attorney present. The attorney requests a delay of eight days in order to try and reach a bargain with the prosecution in that time.10) Accused, name unknown. Attorney present. Accusation: a weapon was found in the accused’s house. The facts of the case are agreed upon, yet the defense attorney states that the accused has already been brought to trial and convicted of this particular offense, where he received a fine. Decision: six day extension of the detention so that the attorney can learn the material. The prosecution will verify, meanwhile, whether the accused has already been tried and sentenced for this offense.Courtroom 5 (from 10.20 throughout the afternoon, with a break in the middle)The judge: Major Moshe Levy. (instead of the Judge T.). In this courtroom, the final discussions of regular cases take place for presentation of evidence and conclusions. 19 cases came up for discussion while we were there. 5 of the accused were not brought to the courthouse, and discussions of their cases were postponed., In three of the cases, a verdict was handed down. In all of the cases in which the accused were not brought to the courthouse, the judge ordered that these cases be transferred to his superiors in the courthouse so that they would know that the accused were not brought in.1) The accused was not brought to the courtroom. The attorney is present and sets the date for another meeting in the future in order to present all of the relevant evidence in the presence of the accused on 09.08.06.2) Four accused and their defense attorney. The fifth person accused in the same case was not brought to the courtroom because of some sort of mishap. A date for a new hearing was set for 23.07.06, so that the entire case with all accused can be settled in one meeting.3) The accused was not brought to the courtroom. Postponement until 26.07.06, under an agreement between the prosecutor and the defense attorney Shaheen, from Da’Hariya.4) The accused not brought to court (prison detainee). There is an agreement between the two sides in the case. A date was set for 26.07. 06.5) The accused was not brought to the courtroom. He is currently at Ofer and is being transported to the prison system. Detained since December of 2005. A plea bargain was worked out in the previous court appearance: 1,000 ₪ and eight months incarceration. A date was set for the verdict on 23.07.06.6) Four young men sitting of the accused bench. Their attorney Juad Ama’awee wants to summon all eight of the witnesses for the prosecution. Requests a copy of the accusation papers. The judge convinces him to make do with only two of the witnesses (numbers 1 and 8). A date was set for 13.08.06.7) The attorney for the accused, Machmud, (one of two brothers detained), informs the judge of his desire to not longer represent his client since his client is unwilling to cooperate with the attorney’s suggestion for a plea bargain. The judge does not release him. The case will be heard again on 06.09.06.8) Machmud’s brother court hearing was postponed for evidence, 06.09.06.9) The detainee (Ha’azem?) is accused of un authorized organization, an attempt to trade with weapon, and membership during 2004 in Kutla Islamiyya etc. Pled guilty His attorney claims that the attempt at trade was not an attempt at all – there was no planning, there was no exchange of money. The detainee did not harm the security of his local area, not of the public at large. He only wants to continue with his studies and to help his father, a farmer, who needs him. The attorney requests a suspended prison sentence. Verdict: “Convicted, based on the accused’s admission of membership in and provision of services for this organization, by referring other people to this organization … asked a third party to obtain a weapon for him in order to carry out activities against the State of Israel.” The judge accepts a plea bargain: 14 months incarceration beginning from 22.11.05, 12 months suspended sentence (concurrently with the incarceration?), 4000₪ or, instead, 4 additional months of prison time.10) The accused Bra’a Azafara, His attorney Achlam Hadad. The accused was arrested on the 19th of January 2006. He is accused of obstructing Israeli military operations and attempting to throw burning objects. On 02.02.06, the court decided to dismiss his case due to lack of evidence. The prosecution appealed the ruling. The appeal was sustained and the accused was returned to prison. The attorney received authorization from her client to come to an agreement with the prosecution. The attorney continues to claim that there is no evidence in the case, at least none that she has heard yet. The detainee is a young student who did not do any harm; he did not throw any bottles. The attorney asks the court to accept a deal. “We need to finish with this case. If we had decided otherwise, this case would have dragged on for half a year.” The judge: the court is not bound by the agreement of the two sides. The verdict: the accused in convicted of attempting to throw burning bottles on cars traveling on Route 65 in January 2006, along with another. In light of the overwhelming evidence pointing at the accused presented by the prosecution, I have decided to allow the agreement between the sides. Sentence: 8 months incarceration from the date he was first detained (19.01.06). 10months suspended sentence for two years, and a fine of 1500₪ to be paid before he is released. 11)The accused, Murad el Nasser. Accusation: membership. His attorney, A. Hadad argues that membership in “Ousara” does not necessarily imply involvement in Hamas. The accused studied the Koran with other members of the organization, and has no connection to violence. A bargain agreement exists with the prosecution. The judge decided that even if the accused’s membership in the group was only for reasons of religion and not violence to sentence him to a punishment of one (1) year in prison and 24 months suspended prison sentence for three years, plus a fine of 2000₪ to be paid by the time he is released and as a condition of his release.10) The accused, Lewis is a young man aged 17 from Abu-Dis. An additional hearing will be held on 11.07.06 before Judge Berman. The case will be heard along with his partner. The accused confesses to the accusation. According to his parents, he has been detained for 7 months already. The accusation: throwing burning objects and membership in a forbidden organization. We also observed four additional cases in this courtroom, each of which was postponed to a second hearing in the future after only a short discussion.Courtroom 2Judge: (name unknown)Attorney for the defence, Achlam Hadad.The accused: Rafik or Taufik, The accusation: attempt to cause damage (?) to a military vehicle. The judge declares that he is not bound by any plea bargain agreement reached between the two sides, and that he is able to reach a different decision if he so chooses.The prosecution requests the assignment of a suspended sentence based on a previous offense, and that this sentence for the previous offense be considered separately from the current plea bargain agreement for the current offense. The defense attorney asks the judge to consider the accused’s medical file. The prosecution: the plea agreement includes 6 ½ years jail time, which does not include any time the accused spent in administrative custody. The defense attorney requests that the plea bargain be approved. The detainee has been in administrative custody for a total period of 7 months since 2002. The accused confesses of his actions. The accused is asked if he would like to say anything. He says to the court that he is married and has a daughter. His interrogation was difficult and even today he still cannot hear out of one ear.Verdict and sentencing will take place on 17.08.06.