Military Court at Ofer – Wednesday, 27.09.06 (10:00-15:00)Deliberations taking place in Courtroom 4Observers: Roni H., Nora O. (reporting)Translation: Ilene M.During all the deliberations, Judge Major Amir Dehan presided,And the Military Prosecutor was Lieutenant Meital ZrihanCase # 4737/05The Accused: Machmud Achmed Nemer HamedAccused of shooting at a personDefense lawyer: Attorney Machmud ShahinType of deliberation: HearingThe accused’s family members are not present in the courtroom. Before the start of the deliberation, the defense lawyer tries to convince his client to agree to plea bargaining while the lawyers negotiate. It does not seem as if the accused is willing to accept the offer.Prosecution witness #2 is brought in (the first witness did not show up). This witness is meant to implicate the accused. The witness is a detainee who belonged to the same cell of the Al-Aqsa brigades as the accused. He is accused of possession of firearms and of trading in firearms. He admits that he acted together with the accused and identifies him in the courtroom. The investigation focuses on an occasion in which the accused fired a weapon. According to the testimony of the witness in the investigation, this was an attempt at a shooting attack but in actuality the shooting did not take place. The witness claims that he gave his testimony to the investigators under pressure of threats. His version of events is that they went to an open area in the region of Har Homa in order to hunt and to try out the improvised weapons they had brought with them. They fired one shot in an open area near Har Homa and another one in the area of Rachel’s Tomb. In both cases it was the accused that fired –into the air, and not in order to hurt anyone.In the courtroom it is explained to the accused that the prosecution may request to present the testimony, and that it is required by law. If the prosecution does this, the court will have to decide which version is the truth – the written version or the version told to the court.During cross-examination by the defense lawyer, the witness confirms that the two shots were fired by the accused and that they were not aimed at any particular target but rather, were shot into the air in order to check out the weapon. The court requests to photograph the witness in order to remember him during the decision making. The witness does not agree.The next deliberation was set for 1.11.06 – the testimony of the investigators of Prosecution witness #2 will be heard, and the accused himself will testify.Case# 3666/06Accused: Mohammed Abed El-Fatach Goabara Accused of manufacturing and throwing a flaming objectDefense lawyer: Attorney Aidas MisekBecause we succeeded in obtaining a copy of the charges from the accused’s lawyer, we have additional details in front of us: the accused was born in 1990, a resident of El-Aruv. He has been detained since 16.6.06.Along with two friends, the accused bought benzene from a gas station; they manufactured a number of Molotov cocktails, which the three of them threw at an IDF jeep in the region of El-Aruv.Nature of the offense: throwing an explosive abject is an offense according to Regulation 58(B) of the Emergency Defense Regulations, 1945.Type of Deliberation: SentencingThe prosecutor announces that they have reached a plea-bargain agreement where she will erase the additional charges, leaving only the charge of throwing a Molotov cocktail. The sentence is 16 months actual imprisonment. The youth’s mother is present in the courtroom and asks for the right of speech. The judge agrees. She says that the 16 year-old is an orphan and her only son. He has never thrown anything at anyone. He was tricked by the kids that were with him. She asks for mercy.The judge would like to keep a uniform level of punishment and sentences the accused to 15 months actual imprisonment. Reasons for the settlement: The accused has a clean record. Also, the accused confessed to the corrected charges and saved precious court time. Case# 1916/06Accused: Jihan Hassan Halil HamedaCharged with manufacturing and throwing a flaming object He is 17 years old and studying for his matriculation exams.b>Defense lawyer: Attorney Osama OdehType of deliberation: Verdict There is a plea bargaining. Verdict: The accused is found guilty after confessing that he threw stones at IDF soldiers and civilians at Rachel’s Tomb on a number of different occasions. He also confessed to throwing four Molotov cocktails with the purpose of sabotaging or causing death to soldiers in an army jeep.In accordance with the settlement the sentence is:16 months actual imprisonment starting from the date of detainment;48 months imprisonment pending for 5 years, starting from the date of release;A fine of 2000 shekels, or 2 months imprisonment.Case# 4005/05The accused: Madhar Ruchi Abdullah MafalAccused of attempt to cause deathDefense lawyer: Joad Amawi(There is no protocol for this deliberation so only a few details are mentioned).Type of deliberation – Demonstration of ProofA witness for the prosecution appears (from Kfar Kaas?), who is accused of throwing stones at an army vehicle. The judge reprimands the prosecutor (they switched in the meantime – I don’t know his name) on the type of questions he asks. The judge asks him to prepare his questions in a more appropriate way for the next time. The prosecutor claims that everything that the witness says is not in line with what he said during the investigation. The defense lawyer cross-examines him.The next deliberation is set for 15.11.06 at 14:00.