Ofer – Military Courthouse, 31.7.06Observers:Roni H., Tova W. (reporter)Translation: Erez L.Courtroom 2Judges: Tirosh and KaoffmanProsecutor: I don’t know his name, but I can say that he is “stubborn”Defense attorney: Sha’abanCase against: Imman Abu DaudThe prosecutor claimed to have 70 witnesses in this case – “relevant” ones, according to his response to the judges’ inquiry.Today, I was present for the testimony of a witness for the prosecution: M. (there was a long discussion between the translators, the judges, the prosecutor and the defense attorney about how to spell this witness’ name in Hebrew).The witness was arrested in 2004 – he was in the Russian Compound [military compound in Jerusalem] and then in Ashkelon. He has been one of Leah Tsamal’s clients for five months already. M. is accused of acts of terrorism by shooting.M. testimony is supposed to incriminate A. Apparently, as I gleaned from his testimony, M. is the one who originally brought A.’s guilt to the attention of the authorities, based on things that he revealed during the interrogations that were part of the investigation against him.There were 40 days of intense and violent interrogations that were conducted by a number of different investigators, who put M. under an extraordinary and apparently intolerable pressure during the interrogations, as was recounted by the one of the investigators, Y., who met him at the Russian Compound and “escorted” him to Ashkelon.These interrogation procedures included, among other things: sleep deprivation, punches in the back, hard punches in the area of the kidneys, handcuffing the upper arms (apparently, this cuts of the blood flow), forced sitting in impossible position and standing in impossible positions. He spent 100 days in a cell in which he could only either curl up on the ground or stand up. At various times, when he couldn’t stand it any longer, he signed different documents that officials put before him – he did not write them himself. (In answer to one of the judge’s questions, it was stated that the investigators did not sign his name for him.)During the interrogations, if he was asked a question that he didn’t know the answer to, he was returned to what A. called “military interrogation.’ The incrimination of additional suspects occurred by the officials presenting a photograph of the “next suspect” with the detainee’s signature on the photograph. Throughout his testimony, time and again, A. stated that all of the evidence that he gave during the interrogation was begotten from him during moments when he couldn’t stand his detention/interrogation any longer, and under the duress of threats against his family and his home (i.e., the destruction of his house).The proceedings/investigation include questions from the prosecutor, the defense attorney and the judges. This investigation raised the a difficult question for us: the witness has yet to be charged, and he is investigated and questioned without the presence of his defense attorney. In response to our questions, two attorneys replied that according the regulation 378, it is forbidden to question a witness outside the presence of counsel, except in military courts… in military courts, it is enough if a defense attorney is appointed to the case, but they are not required to be present at questioning.The judges asked M. if there were extensions of his detention during the military investigation, and he replied yes. They continued and asked whether he told the judge what his status was/how he was doing. M. replied no…Like in other hearings for the extension of military detention and other court cases, the role of the translator in the proceedings was problematic. The judge corrected the way that the translator translated some the things said, as well as the A. defense attorney. This notwithstanding the fact that nobody besides the translator understands Arabic.The case continues next Monday.