The military court of law at Ofer 16 aug 2006.Observers:Daniela J, Hagit S.We attended during this morning two rooms. In room 2 with judge Tirosh and on room 1 with judge Nicholas Kaufman.Our general impression today was that during the deliberations of the court here, just as during the arraingments, the disorder is not small, the delays are interminable, most detainees are brought in and taken out after a short discussion which centers around fixing a date, changing a date, deferral of deliberations because of the absence of a lawyer or a slip-up in the attendance of witnesses. The judges serve rather as ushers (who sit on their elevated thrones) and only for a fraction of the time we attended we heard something that had to do with law.And another conclusion concerning our activities. Following a specific case is very complicated. It seems to me that we have to attach ourselves to specific lawyers and stick with them in selected trials of cases they represent.10:00 -in room 2: in some 40 minutes 8 defendants, all with shackled feet, were led in and taken out of the room. The majority in prison uniforms, a minority in civilian dress. Relatives of some of them are sitting in the room and the joy at this meeting – even from a distance – is apparent.We met for the first time the lawyer Avi Bar-Am from Tel-Aviv who represents an accused (Moussa?) who is accused of owning a fragmentation-grenade, a shock-grenade, and other kinds of unmentionables. The lawyer, in the name of his client, pleads not guilty. The next phase is scheduled for 27 aug 2006. The judge accedes to the request of the lawyer to streamline the process and to summon all the witnesses for the prosecution on the same date. The lawyer: “evry day he is in prison .. is superfluous” and therefor he requests to expedite.During a short conversation with us, the lawyer Bar-Am is very critical of the functioning of the military court, and says that he, in contrast with many of the other lawyers, insists on a trial with proof and refrains from entering plea bargains.The lawyer Bar-Am represents another defendant (Ibrahim?) who is accused of a very serious crime and we are dealing with a verdict of 8-9 years prison. Bar-Am tells us that he succeeded in refuting several of the accusations and to restrict the punishment to about 2 years. The case will be heard on 13 sept 2006 at 14:00.At 10:40 -the case of Elcheich, who was represented by Ahlam Hadad, was started. At this hearing a witness, who did not show up last week, was to testify. The prosecutor requests to hear the evidence with closed doors in order not to endanger the witness, who works for the security services. The defense counsel explains her objection and the judge decides on closed doors.From Ahlam: at the next sitting in the case of Alcheich a policeman will testify in public, the defense will say its case and there will be a summing up. The date 20 sept 2006 with Tirosh and is due to commence at 9:30.10:50 -until lunch break, in room 1: when we entered, 5 defendants sat on the on a bench, all very young-looking. To four of them the judge said that he wanted to investigate their cases and will deal with them in the afternoon. The judge gave verdict in one case of the defendants present: the accused, in prison uniform and with shackled feet, was arrested in early september, (that means nearly one year!) for membership in an organization … (name not heard). The sides came to an agreement and the judge accepts it: 16 months actual prison term, 3 months conditional for the duration of 3 years (and he should pay attention to section 3 of the writ of accusation). I was struck by the gravity of the punishment, and especially by the introductory statement of the judge: because of his young age, his clean past, savings of the court’s time … (the consideration of saving the court’s time is of course a prize for plea bargains !). Such a verdict allows appeal within 30 days.There was another accused – apparently released on bail – who entered the room by the same entrance we used. As far as I understood the accusation against him was that he shot a gun at Ofer camp. Lawyer Younes represents him and the hearing is set for 1 nov 2006.A defendant (his name ? from Hebron) has been detained for eight months already, part of this in administrative detention, pleads not-guilty on all accusations through lawyer Abu Omer. According to Abu Omer, two witnesses for the prosecution are under arrest. The case will be brought for testimonies on 23 aug 2006.A defendant (Nadal?) is accused of assault of a soldier and snatched his weapon during a routine check. His lawyer is Advocate Younes. This is not the first assault of the defendant, but his third. He attacked a policeman in 2001 and was imprisoned for 3 months, and again in 2003. There is agreement between the sides about the punishment and the judge honors the agreement: a conditional sentence of 9 months. Sounds familiar to Daniela and me from the checkpoints. Apparently both the judge and the prosecutor are not impressed by this serial assault.