Military Court Ofer, Tuesday, 20.02.07Rama Y., Norah O. and Roni H. (reporting) transl. Lydia A. The arguments for punishment in the case of Hussam Shahin, #1436/04, which were to be heard in courtroom 2, were postponed because one of the 3 judges was absent due to a death n the family. The defendant’s family (parents and sister) were present at our request. Also present was a Norwegian lawyer, representing a Norwegian workers’ organization, who has been following this trial for 3 years. The organization is bearing part of the legal expenses due to its good relations with Hussam Shahin until his arrest. The defendant was the head of the Fatah Youth Movement, Shabiba, in the Jerusalem area, responsible for international relations on its behalf. Unfortunately we have been unable to attend the 01.03.07 session, which dealt with the verdict. The defense lawyer, Kawar, gave us the gist of the proceedings. The prosecution demanded a 24-year prison term, while the defense requested less than 8 years. Hussam Shahin was accused of an attempt to kill and trading in arms, and other offences. The defense is convinced that Hussam Shahin is not guilty. His name is very common among the Palestinians and the defense suspects that the case has been pinned on him instead of somebody else of the same name, due to his leading position in the Fatah.The verdict will be given at 13:00 on Wednesday, 14.03.07.The defense lawyer is determined to appeal promptly to the Military Court of Appeals, claiming that the verdict was erroneous. There was no identification line-up, and no confrontation with witnesses. There were also interpretation problems in the interrogation of witnesses, conducted by people whose knowledge of Arabic was inadequate, etc. Should the appeal be rejected, the defense lawyer intends to appeal to the High Court claiming not just factual but also legal flaws.Courtroom 4 Case 3704/06 – Iman Abur Sayid Sharif (resident of Hebron) Prosecution: Lieutenant Tali BlankDefense : Anwar Abu OmerCharge : Attempted killingType of proceedings: Evidence There is a protocol; brother and uncle of the defendant are present. Reminder: The defendant is mentally ill. At the last hearing (see report of 23.01.07), a psychiatrist appeared as an expert witness on behalf of prosecution, to testify as to the defendant’s responsibility for his actions. She found the defendant sane at the time of committing the offense. Today, a Palestinian psychiatrist was brought in by the defense. The judge asked to know whether the defendant was capable to stand trial. The psychiatrist, Dr. Sahab Sahab, explains that Hebron has only one psychiatric clinic and that he sees 40-50 patients a day. Serious cases are sent to the psychiatric department of the Beth Lehem hospital. He does not remember whether Sharif has been sent to Beth Lehem for electric shock treatment. The defendant suffers from manic-depression, which symptoms are, among others, anxieties and compulsive behavior. The last time he saw the defendant (several days before the event) he was relatively calm, but his condition could change from hour to hour. He has not examined him since May 2006 and does not know his condition at present. Cannot tell what the defendant’s condition would be had he taken medication. His condition can be assessed only if there is close follow-up.Decision: The prosecution and the defense will submit to the court written summaries concerning the defendant’s fitness to stand trial and his understanding of his actions. The case will be dealt with as an internal reminder, without the defendant’s presence, on 27.03.07.Regarding the reminder meeting of 10.04.07A personal remark: There is no need for an expert opinion – one look at the defendant shows that he is mentally ill. The defendant’s brother tells us that the man had been married for a short time. A glance at him makes it clear why.File No 4219/05Hassan Yusuf Daud Halilcharged with holding a prominent position in HamasJudge: Menahem LiebermanProsecutor: Tali BlancAttorney: Jawad BoulusHassan Yussuf is one of the heads of the Hamas leadership in the West Bank, known for his moderate views. He was arrested 2 years ago, released and arrested again and faces now his trial. His attorney, Jawad Boulus, follows the guide line of challenging the authority of an Israeli court to judge the positions of a political leader. In this particular hearing he rejected 3 witnesses of the prosecution (because he thought their testimony was dispensable), but when he was overruled by the judge, he seized the opportunity and questioned them thoroughly to prove that their procedures were faulty. First witness was police investigator Moshe Levy. He continued his testimony from 9.1.07. Levy has investigated the defendant Assam Barghuti and was asked by the prosecutor: “what happens when in the course of the translation of an expression the defendant argues that he never said such a thing?” Attorney Boulus rejected this question as being too general, while the court has to deal with a concrete statement of Barghuti and Levy does not remember in what circumstances Barghuti has made this statement. Boulus’ objection was overruled and he will have to hand in his arguments in written form until the 11.3.07. The prosecution will have to answer until 18.3.07.Second witness was police investigator Avi Akiva. Avi has investigated the defendant Ya’akub Abu Assab. Attorney Boulus rejected to discuss the case of Ya’akub Abu Assab again, since the court has completed to hear it 9 months ago. He argued that this means wasting the time of the court and he did not remember the details of this case Again Boulus objection was overruled but he was granted 40 minutes in order to reread the testimony. At 13:00 the questioning continued. The witness Avi did not remember anything beyond what was written in the file. He has questioned the defendant in Arabic, but took notes in Hebrew, because his knowledge of written Arabic was poor. At the end of every interrogation he has translated his notes into spoken Arabic so that the defendant would understand what he was signing. Avi Akiva has interrogated Abu Assab between the period of 1.9.05 and 20.9.05. But it turned out that he has met with him 3 days before the 1.9.05. They have entered into Abu Assab’s email and read it together. There is no mention in the files that Abu Assab has given his agreement. According to the protocols Abu Assab has given his agreement only on 5.9.05. But this document from 5.9.05, in which Abu Assab gives his agreement to open his email and which was submitted by the prosecution only at this court hearing, was unknown to attorney Boulus. He saw it for the first time at court. Also the witness saw it for the fierst time. According to Boulus this is evidence material which “actually does not exist” Of the 16 documents that were printed fron Assab’s email there is one from the 9.1.05 coming from Hassan Yussuf’s. On this very day, Hassan Yussuf was sitting in an Israeli prison. Boulus asked Avi if he did not check what was written in this very document? No, I do not know to read Arabic, was the answer. In his cross examination Boulus found great inconsistencies in the evidence of the witness Avi Akiba. The dates were not consistent: when did they read together Abu Assab’s email – three days before the first investigation, which took place on 1.9.05, or on 5.9.05, when there exists an important document of agreement, which was until now unknown to Boulus. “I want to draw the attention of the court to the fact, that there are inconsistencies in the dates of the documents and in their appearance in the files!!” The ruling:The prosecutor was not entitled to question the witness on matters, which concern the document, that was not presented to the witness before. The court considers gravely the fact that documents were not submitted by the prosecution to the defense! ( in a short absence of the attorney the judge reprimanded the prosecutor because of this blunder and warned her that on such a mistake the defense could raise objection) Nevertheless, the prosecutor asked to be permitted to continue to question the witness, but the judge overruled her request. The third witness was Yakob Barazani. He has interrogated the defendants Assam Barghuti and Said Arar. Said Arar has declared that the sayings which were allegedly qoted as his were not his sayings. Barazani, on the other hand, is convinced that it was Arar’s saying. There is a heated discussion between Boulus and Barazani about the fact that the evidence is taken in Arabic but written in Hebrew. This translation is very often incorrect and creates misunderstandings. Attorney Boulus presented to Barazani several sentences in Arabic and asked him to translate them into Hebrew. The result did not satisfy Boulus and he argued that many relevant meanings were lost along the way. The interrogators know only spoken Arabic but do not read and write in Arabic. The defendant has to sign a statement written in Hebrew, which is translated to him back into Arabic. The amount of mistakes and misunderstandings in this process are enormous! The name of Hassan Yusef was mentioned in Assam Barghuti’s testimony: “Hassan Yusef has delivered a speech at the assembly”. Boulus wanted to know if Barghuti has spoken about Hassan Yusef out of his own initiative or whether the interrogator has asked about him. Barazani said that Barghuti mentioned Hassan Yusef without having been asked about him and that Yusuf was a person that he, Barazani, did not know anything about.The defense and the prosecution will meet in the coming week in order to try to filter out who will be the witnesses that will be heared next. The next session will be on 26.3.07.