Extensions of custody, Migrash Ha’Rusim” (Jerusalem)Monday 29.05.06Observers: Netta E., Hagit S.Translation: Erez L.We entered through the “King’s Road”, through the main entrance at 10.30. The judge (Lieutenant Colonel in the Reserves H.) was already seated at his place, and immediately the drawn-out spectacle began. The computers system was down, and today the court reporter was seated next to the judge, who from time to time would dictate to her his decisions. Most of the time, the judge himself writes: about the investigation, the defense, or the detainee. That’s how it used to work in the past in courtrooms, the judge explained, and that’s how it would be today. It doesn’t seem like the absence of technology slowed down the pace of the proceedings. Eighteen detainees came before the judge throughout the course of the day’s proceedings. Out of those 18, there were six who were equipped with attorneys. When those detainees were brought into the courtroom, we and the attorneys were forced to leave the room. As usual, once the detainees were taken out of the courtroom, the attorney went in and was allowed to question the prosecutor.Three of the four attorneys present at the proceedings were appointed by prisoners’ rights associations. None of the attorneys attempted to question B., the prosecutor (a futile attempt in any case since all of the relevant materials are classified), and the attorneys simply made requests to shorten the period of detention and to expedite the investigation. In most cases, the sides reached an agreement within a minute, and the judge made note of it. In one case, the attorney requested that a detainee’s proceedings be moved to Camp Ofer, since here his investigation was completed and he had been detained in Russian Compound for already 5 weeks. The judge ruled: an extension of another 8 days. The detainee requested, through his attorney, to be allowed to telephone his family. The investigator explained that detainees are not permitted to talk to their families, and that only he, the investigator, can do so on the detainee’s behalf.Another detainee requested being moved to Camp Ofer because the detention at the Russian Compound was difficult for him. “I’m here in a cell,” he said. It seems to me like he was talking about solitary confinement. This detainee did not confess, and there is a lot of incriminating evidence of his association with people in the popular resistance. The judge: 11 more days.Another of the detainees has already been detained for 40 days (!). In the previous proceedings, his detention was lengthened by 8 days. The judge lengthened his detention by another 8 days. The charge: membership in “Holta Islamiyya” (a student faction of Hamas). When the proceedings were finished, we stayed for a few minutes and the judge told us how hard the Israeli Security Services work, and how much confidence he had in their investigations, and explained how the detention houses and prisons are over-crowded from all the detainees, and that is plainly evident that the Security Services don’t just detain people for no reason. Rather, these are dangerous people. Then, B., the prosecutor, added that it’s from detention in the cells that the detainees meet one another and become acquainted, and that that’s where all the trouble begins. Therefore, these are the people that need to be imprisoned, etc., etc.A private attorney (M., from Um-al-Fahem), who represented three of the detainees, has been working at the courthouse for an extended period of time. He requested that he be allowed to see his client, a sequestered detainee, N., in the courtroom so that he can get from him power of attorney in order to try and advocate on his client’s behalf in other jurisdictions, or under different authorities. M. had also filed a petition in the district courts to have the injunction, which prevents his client from meeting with his attorney, to be removed. The judge declines his request for a meeting with his client. M. is not permitted to be present when his client comes before the judge. The judge recommends that M. get the power of attorney from the detainee’s family. The attorney explains that the signatures necessary for power of attorney cannot be sent by fax, according to the law, and that since the detainee’s family lives in the territories, in the area of Palestinian authority, he, the attorney, is prohibited from traveling to them to have the form signed in person. The judge continues to deny his application for a meeting, and the prosecutor adds his opposition in stating that there has never been granted an exception to the established procedure of “two phases” (in the first phase, the detainee comes before the judge, and in the second phase the attorney – a complete separation in the courtroom).M. tries again: He asserts that the law requires that any injunction filed prohibiting a meeting between an attorney and client be forwarded to the attorney for notification, and that until that notification takes place, the injunction is not valid. He states that the he was never notified of the injunction, and that even in previous proceedings at the courthouse, he was not notified of the injunction. The judge listens politely to what M. is saying, and then tells the prosecutor to photocopy the order of injunction and to give the copy to M. M. then notifies the court that he wishes to question the prosecutor. The following dialog ensues:“Was the detainee questioned?” – “Yes”“Was a version given by him?” – “A version was not given to the police”“Is there incriminating evidence” – “That information appears in the classified report”“Are there other people involved being interrogated in relation to it?” – “That information also appears in the classified report”. M. asks the prosecutor to answer the question anyway, and the prosecutor states – “There are other being interrogated.”“What is the length of time required” – “It is detailed in the classified report,” and following repeated questioning by M., the prosecutor replies – “there is a detailed program for a 30-day investigation.” M. continues “Is the 30-day investigation for my client or for the others involved?” The judge stops him and rules that he doesn’t allow the question. M. doesn’t relent: “The period of 30-days for investigation is excessive since 30 days is the maximum period the court is permitted to order,” and he continues and requests that the court not accede to the request of the prosecutor, particularly with reference to the present injunction on meetings between M. and his client. The judge rules, and dictates to the court reporter that upon inspection of the report that there is a reasonable and well-founded suspicion that the detainee is involved in activities that threaten the security of the area!!! and that the detainee’s detention is extended for 18 more days. M. later explained to us that he knew that his questioning of the prosecutor would not reveal anything from the classified material, and that he would not be allowed to mount a defense for the detainee. He wanted, however, that all these facts would appear in the official record. It was for this reason that he took advantage of his right to question and demand.There were two detainees whose attorneys did not appear for the proceedings. In these cases, the judge, aided by a translator, asks the detainees their wishes. “To shorten the detention,” replied the detainee through the translator. The judge considered the file with the classified report, and ordered an extension of the detention for 11 more days, in which time the detainee has to be served with an order of conviction. The judge explained (more than once throughout the day’s proceedings) that there is already an backlog of cases for the prosecutors and investigators, and so he is forced to extend the length of detention even for people who cases don’t necessarily require intensive investigation.