Ofer Court, Wednesday, 07.08.07Observers and reporters: Nurit Sh., Michaela R. Transl. Lydia A.We attended several sessions but shall report briefly on two only. In one session it appears (though is not certain) that the inability of defense lawyers to talk to their clients creates complications. In the second the well-known trick of making the Palestinian detainees sign confessions in Hebrew with no translation or explanation occurred again.Defense: AarjAccused: Hanani Ashraf; Charge: attempt to cause death; Stage: reminderThere is no plea bargain because there is no agreement on penalty, but the judges make it clear to the accused that the court would not bound by such arrangement, even if there were one. The accused admits to the charge of attempting to cause death, on 17.06.07, in a suicide attack. After trying unsuccessfully to enter Israel via A’ram carrying a case containing a belt with explosive charges, he managed to enter through Bir Naballah, reached Nablus Gate, and was caught near Jaffa Road in Jerusalem. The accused claimed that his dispatchers had changed their minds and he was caught on his way back. In other words, the legal question is not whether there was an attempt to cause death but whether the failure to carry it out was due to his arrest or to his operators’ change of mind. It is not clear how this affects penalty. Judge Kaufman suggests that the accused should give evidence and be cross-examined by the prosecutor. He consents. Defense lawyer Aarj told us later that he suspected that the evidence was coerced and that it might be in contradiction with the statement made by the accused when he was interrogated by the police. There is evidence of imperfect lawyer-client communication in this case. According to the lawyer, the accused takes a wrong approach. Next hearing was set for 30.10.2007. Defense: AarjAccused: Lil (Leyli) Ayub Muhmed Abu Ragila Charge: Causing death. Stage: proofThe case concerns the kidnapping and killing Eliyahu about a year ago. The proceedings focused on the interrogation of a prosecution witness. The witness said that the accused had delivered Eliyahu to him, which means that the latter was involved in the kidnapping though he neither suggested to nor killed Eliyahu. The witness testified that he himself suggested murdering Eliyahu. The prosecutor showed the witness two statements and asked whether he identified his signature. The witness identified his signature. One of the statements (in Hebrew) said that it was the accused who suggested killing the kidnapped man. The witness denies this and says that there is a statement in Arabic) which lists all the details of the murder. He says that whoever wrote down the statement might have done so inaccurately. The writer of the statement had asked him to sign without telling him what he had written. He had already clained in the court that the investigator translated without telling him what he had written. At this stage the prosecutor asks to declare him a hostile witness. The defense objects claiming that the witness does not contradict himself. Judge Tirosh asks whether there is a statement in Arabic. The prosecutor says that the question is irrelevant for declaring the witness hostile. The defense says that there is an Arabic statement. The prosecutor avoids answering the question. (Later on Aarj explains to us that the prosecution attempted to conceal the existence of an Arabic statement. The prosecutor insists on declaring the witness hostile, but the judge wishes to clarify this point and adjourns the session for two hours. We do not know how it ended.