Detention house, Migrash Ha’Rusim, Jerusalem, 5.1.06 AMObservers: Hava H., Hagit S. (reporter)Translation: Brenda H.On our fourth visit to the place we did not wait long. The fact of our attendance seems to be accepted and established. We were present for four extensions of detention.Seven others were “preventive”, these are not permitted to see a lawyer and our attendance appears to be dangerous in the eyes of the police investigator. We brought up the “precedent”, i.e. our attendance last week at hearings of extensions of preventive detention but the police investigator insisted that we left the court. Incidentally, it worked out well since we were able to see something of the interior of the detention centre and the conditions in which prisoners are brought to their “trials”.The first detaineeThey ushered us in during the middle of pleading by the lawyer, Nabil Azchiman,, a private lawyer who, we found out later, has succeeded through the High Court to remove an obstacle, that is to say, that he is permitted to meet with his client, a student, resident of Israel and living in Beit Hanina, and to represent him. The request was for a further 18 days for investigation and authentication etc. The suspicions, as usual, were activity against security in the area.An argument between the lawyer and the police investigator who was representing the petitioner – the “Shabak” (General Security Service) The lawyer demanded to know what investigations or legal actions had been taken (records of other investigations and so on). The prosecutor listened to all of this more or less with a contemptuous sneer, did not answer some questions, or said “I don’t know, or “I cannot answer you on that point” In any case, it seems that the detainee, was suspected of being a member of Hamas. On this point, the lawyer claimed that the detainee belonged to an organization, “Haslafiyah” which is does not recognize armed activities and opposes the direction of Hamas. In the discussion, several names came up, of people who might have framed the accused and the lawyer asked if the detainee was confronted with these people. These questions about possible framing were also not answered. The judge did not intervene at all in the legal argument. The investigator claimed all the time that this was a discussion about extending the detention, and not about “proofs” and as such he was not required to know all the facts, and also that there are hundreds of detainees and he cannot bring details of the investigation for all of them. In a general way, it seems that what is important there is “the time of the Court” and not the freedom of the individual. The lawyer asked also if the examination of the computer of the detainee was finished (no answer) and also that the investigator should give details to the court on future actions that would be demanded for the investigation. The judge ordered the investigator to do this and he sat and wrote several sentences. Only he and the judge know what was written there.In summary, the lawyer claimed that what was brought to the judge did not include the police admissions and the version of the suspect that was interpreted in the presence of those who made him speak, the investigators of Shabak and so on, the political activities were not brought, and according to this, no alternative to the arrest such as release on parole could be considered. All this because the petitioner was not orientated, had not done his home work…The judge’s decision: not all the material from the investigation had been brought to the hearing and that was regretful and he decided to extend the detention for five days only in order that the detainee would be brought with material from the investigation or alternatively transfer to the military prosecution which will decide on closure of the case or file an indictment.The translator translated about 10% of the discussion we estimated.We waited in the corridor between the discussions, and saw how the prisoners were brought to the hearings. They are blindfolded as we have already reported, in handcuffs and to save the time of the court, they wait in a corner behind an open iron door. It is absolutely inhuman.2. A detainee’s lawyer who was prevented from seeing his client.Words were exchanged quickly and quietly between the prosecutor, the judge and the lawyer. The detainee was there but was forbidden to see his lawyer. Detention was prolonged for a further 7 days.3. Another 2 detainees were brought in front of the judge. In these two instances there was an agreement between the defense lawyer and the prosecutor for a further 12 days detention. So the military prosecutor can file an indictment.4. A detainee who was arrested in his house. The prosecutor asked for 25 days extension of detention, the judge glanced for a moment at classified material and determined: reasonable suspicions of hostile activities. There is a need to allow the investigation to reach a conclusion and “awarded” 15 further days.5. A detainee who came without a lawyer. His lawyer visited him today but did not stay for the discussion. He was arrested on 23/11/05 and today is the fourth request for extension of detention. The judge gave a further 12 days to reach the end of the investigation..It seems to us that today we saw that a lawyer who takes the trouble to do his homework and to argue in favor of the detainee can significantly reduce the number of days of extending the detention order and we also learned that it is possible to go to the High Court and remove the ban on meeting with a lawyer.A lawyer who knows the details of the suspicions against the client can do more. (because of this, a private lawyer should be employed but most detainees can not afford) It is clear to us that the next time there will be another judge, there will or won’t be another lawyer and the stupid repetitive procedures of prolonging administrative detention automatically will continue.