Military Court Ofer, Monday, 7.5.07Tova S., Roni H. (reporting)At Ofer we met Hannah Friedman and Louis Frankenthaler from the Public Committee against Torture in Israel, who came with three guests from Finland to show them what a military court looks like. They were supposed to meet with attorney Fida Kawa, who is also affiliated to PCATI and we attended the hearing of Muhammed Zahayka together. Room 4Case No. 3216/06Muhammed Zuhadi Daud ZahaykaCharge: Attempt to cause deathDefense: Fida KawarProsecutor: Dana Gamish(See report by Norah from 16.4.07)The hearing was very short. A plea bargain was in the works. Only one paragraph remained that was still problematic and the defense lawyer wanted to call another witness. The new hearing is scheduled for July 9th. Room 4 Case No. 4219/05Hassan Yusuf Daud HalilCharged with holding a prominent position in Hamas Prosecutor: Tali BlancDefense: G’uad Boulus(See my report of 20.2.07)We have been following the trial of Hassan Yusuf on and off, and reported about it.Today Hassan was standing in the witness box, being interrogated by Boulus and then by the prosecutor. The most conspicuous element in this interrogation was the fact that the court translator was frequently unable to find the correct terms in either language, and the attorney had to correct him constantly! This, of course, is a very troubling matter, in terms of the course of the interrogation (frequent disruptions and a sense of disturbance) but it also raises a red flag concerning the veracity of the translated material in the military court system in general. How can one be sure that what the defendants testify and what goes into the protocols is the same? Reliable translators are vital to the process! (Another example of today’s language issues: The translator could not translate a statement by attorney Tawil into Hebrew, and had to be assisted by attorney Hadad!) Boulus complained that his client has been interrogated recently and that he has not received the protocol. He demanded to look into every detail concerning the trial. Judge Lieberman agreed and reprimanded the prosecutor: All materials must be presented to the court. Interrogation by the defense:From Boulus’s interrogation we learned that Hassan Yusuf has been an Imam for 32 years, an employee of the Waqf. (According to the Encyclopedia of the Orient, the term “Imam” in Islam denotes a person with special qualities related to the religion.) Now he is retired. He was arrested on Sept. 2005, after having been released from a previous detention only in Nov. of 2004. Boulus reminded him that he was charged with several offenses, but Hassan Yusuf vehemently denied being guilty of any of them. “Are you the spokesman for the Hamas?” asked the attorney. “I have been a spokesman until 1996. Since then I am neither spokesman nor member of Hamas anymore.” “You are accused of having held a speech at an assembly in Beit Ichya.” “Of course, I was an Imam and I used to preach on Fridays, as was my duty!” “Have you attended election meetings of Hamas?” “No.” “The brother of one of your colleagues said that you were angry with his brother, because he failed to attend an election meeting.” “I do not know this person.” “Have you financially supported the Islamic groups at the University elections in 2004?” “I have been in prison in 2004 and also afterwards. I have not supported them.” “Several computer documents have been presented to the court.” “I do not know how to use a computer or e-mail.” “Have you asked somebody in your office to write something for you on the computer?” “Many people passed through my office. We are service providers: Condolence announcements, sulha between people… But I never asked anybody to use a computer on my behalf.” The prosecution’s interrogation:She tried to invalidate Hassan’s statements.”Did you speak to your community about your personal views?” “Yes, I am a respected person and I was asked by many people for my personal views.” “Are you connected with the media? Did they ask you about you views?” “They were interested in my Friday sermons and wrote about them.” “Did they ask you if you were member of Hamas?'”Yes, but since 1996 I have not been a member of Hamas.” “One of the witnesses said that you had Hamas material in your office.” “That is not true.” “Another witness said that you spoke at an election assembly. Is he also a liar?” “I did not speak at an election assembly.” “A witness, whom you claim not to know, said that you had visited his grandmother.” “If his grandmother was sick I visited her, as I visit every sick person.” “Have you spoken to Olmert?” “He wanted to speak with me in prison, but I refused”. “Today the newspapers report that you are the spokesman of Hamas.” “I used to be the spokesman, so this image stayed with them until today.” Boulus interfered angrily: “The media write and say all kinds of things. If the media wrote that the judge is a fanatic settler, would this disqualify you as a judge in a military court?” Lieberman answered that he did not deny being a settler!!At this point, the court went into recess and unfortunately we could not stay any longer.