Military Court – Ofer, Monday, 18/12/06, morningHall 3. Judge: Lieutenant-colonel Nathanel BanishoCase: Arrest appeal 4096/06. Balal Rabach Abu Rahma, aged 15 ½ , from Bal’yinDefense attorney: Gaby Laskiprosecutor: captain Limor Ben Hamu. Offence: hurling a stoneProcedure type: Appeal against extension of remand. There is a detailed protocol. Parents present at the hearing. The boy was arrested on Saturday, 2/12/06, on suspicion of hurling a stone at the fence. According to the parents, he was playing with younger children when soldiers entered the village. The defense attorney reminds the court that the boy is a minor, 15 ½ years old, hard of hearing and mentally retarded, attending school at 3 years below his age. Ms. Laski states that a distinction should be made between hurling stones at vehicles and at a fence, due to different degree of danger. In this case nobody was hurt. The court did not consider alternatives to detention and ignored the offer of the deputy village committee head to undertake responsibility for the boy. There is no memorandum re. arrest of minors, as practiced by civil courts.Another complaint: When arrested, the boy had been suffering from a broken toe, yet he got no treatment in custody, other than a pain reliever. Due to his condition, the boy is unable to request treatment for himself. An alternative to detention should be considered in every case, much more so in the case of a minor of this boy’s special circumstances. The boy’s father undertakes to accompany him to school so as not to leave him alone. The parents, with the support of the village, are ready to put up a bail for having an alternative to detention. The attorney asks again for a suitable alternative.The prosecutor asks for rejection of the appeal. She refutes Laski’s claim that the court erred in not offering a real alternative. She also claims that the fact of the father’s being unemployed is no excuse for his son’s participation in stone hurling. In view of the danger inherent in the offence, the causes of arrest are valid. The alternatives proposed will not reduce the danger. The decision will be given tomorrow, 19/12/06. The court secretariat will have the medical file of the boy brought to the court from the Ofer detention camp. The case was originally scheduled for decision on 16/1/07. The defense attorney has asked to advance the decision so as to shorten the boy’s stay in the detention facility. According to Ms. Laski, should the judge fail to order release of the boy, there is still the possibility of requesting a revision of the case in a civil court, or appealing to the Supreme Court. A later addition: Two days later, the attorney informed us that the boy was not released due to being considered dangerous.