Military Court – SalemTuesday, 6.9.05Observers: Netta G., Shula B.Translation: Maureen A.10:00 – 14:00We observed a number of court sessions, presided over by the Presiding Judge in Salem, Lieutenant-Colonel Erez Hason; the prosecuting attorney was Lieutenant Kamil Farag.I have described some of the sessions:Nadel Muhamad Yusef Abu JelamiThe charge: Membership in an illegal group, commission of a task in its name and conspiring to cause a wrongful death.Sentence: 50 months imprisonment from the day of incarceration and 24 months probation for 5 years from the day of his release from prison.Arguments: The court took into consideration the fact that the defendant confessed and that he had no prior convictions. Despite the fact that the defendant initiated the conspiracy, it is not clear whether or not the plan continued to develop, whether or not he recruited anyone and whether or not he did indeed carry out surveillance.The prosecutor and the defence attorney, Faris Abu Hasan, appealed to the judge jointly in favor of the above-mentioned sentence.The right to appeal was granted.Ubai Fahmi Basil El AbudiThe charge: The only charge that interested the court was conspiracy to cause a wrongful death.Sentence: Three and a half years imprisonment and 24 months probation from the day of his release from prison.Arguments: Since it could not be proven that the conspiracy continued to develop and since the defendant was young when the crime was committed and since his accomplice was sentenced to 5 (50 ???????)months for playing a bigger role in the conspiracy and since he had no prior convictions and had confessed to the crime.The prosecutor and the defence attorney, Faris Abu Hasan, appealed to the judge jointly in favor of the above-mentioned sentence.The right to appeal was granted.Tarik Shakir Muhamed ZvidaThe charge: Conspiracy to cause a wrongful death.Sentence: Four and a half years imprisonment and 25 months probation for 5 years from the day of his release from prison.Arguments: The conspiracy had reached its final stages, however only his proportional part in it was taken into consideration. He had conducted surveillance and was not involved in the detailed carrying out of the plan. The conspiracy was not carried out, no harm resulted from his actions. The fact that he had no prior convictions and that he had confessed were taken into account.The prosecutor and the defence attorney, Faris Abu Hasan, appealed to the judge jointly in favor of the above-mentioned sentence.The right to appeal was granted.We were present in two sessions where a continuance at another date was decided upon:Zakaria Mustafa Said ShtatThe charge: We don’t know what the charge was; it was not listed in the charge protocol.The defence attorney was Faris Abu HasanThe defendant pleaded innocent.The evidentiary hearing was set for September 29, 2005.Fahdi Rushdi Lutfi RianThe charge: We don’t know what the charge was; it was not listed in the charge protocol.The defence attorney, a Mr. Halabi, asked for a continuance in order to become familiar with the case, which he had just recently taken on.The evidentiary hearing and the dispositional hearing were set for October 6, 2005.In addition, we were present for the arguments for sentencing and for the sentencing hearing itself for one of the defendants in the Afula Mall bombing two years ago.For technical reasons we do not have the protocol of that session, so we cannot report accurately.Shua KamanjiThe hearing took place in the presence of three judges, Presiding Judge Lieutenant-Colonel Erez Hason, another lieutenant-colonel and a major. The prosecutor and the defence attorney, Halabi, agreed on the facts of the case and on the fact that the defendant was not the main perpetrator of the crime, only a link in the chain between the suicide bomber and her dispatcher.The prosecutor claimed that the defendant played a vital role and should be sentenced to three consecutive life sentences, the same sentence the dispatcher received.The defence attorney claimed that the bombing would have taken place even without the defendant’s mediation and asked the court to make due with a sentence of up to twenty years incarceration.The defendant also spoke.The court took a recess, after which only the presiding judge returned and read the sentence:The defendant was a vital link in the commission of the crime; however, since he was not the main perpetrator, he was sentenced to three concurrent life sentences.In the Courtroom:• A Military Policewoman spoke very antagonistically to Ubai’s parents, who don’t speak Hebrew.• Outside the courtroom these parents, a professor from Beir Zeit University and a retired teacher, complained about the difficulties the military authorities had created for them in their attempts to communicate with their son and in sending him packages from home during the period of his investigation. They also complained about the long and tiring trip they had to take in order to visit him, long hard hours, from Ramallah to the jail near the Sha’ata jail, as compared to the visit itself, which was over in a very short time. They also complained that the copy of the protocol of the hearing which they were given was in Hebrew; they do not know Hebrew well at all.• There was a strange feeling in the courtroom that there was a kind of fellowship and a friendly reassurance between the judge and the lawyers, as if the defendants were the last thing on their minds at that moment.• Most of the hearings we witnessed began with a declaration of absolute trust in the prosecutor on the part of the defence lawyer and with the acceptance on his part of the sentence the prosecution set.• The general impression all this made was that the sentencing had been carried out indifferently, hurriedly and automatically – all of which seemingly stemmed from the level of defence offered. The defence was unmotivated and minimal at best.• It was difficult to hear what was being said in the courtroom, by the judge as well as by the lawyers. It was all said quietly and was interrupted constantly, due to the need for simultaneous translation. No effort was made to help the people in the courtroom hear what was going on, even though there were always close relatives of the defendants present.• Without the protocol, which was often only partial and unclear, even we couldn’t understand what was going on before our eyes.