The military tribunal of Salem, Wednesday 12 July 2006.Observers: Lea R, Neta G (reporting).9:30 – 16:30.We came to observe the trial of Saad Basem Yasin, head of the Legal Office of the Ansar A Sagyin Organization in Nablus, and we were present in the courtroom during all day of legal discussions.The deliberations started at 09:45.The judge Major Amit Preiss.The prosecutors: A captain, a judiciary officer for women (a NCO), a male captain, all very young. Also the defendants are very young.From 09:45 till 11:00 15 files were dealt with. On the average 5 minutes per case. We did not succeed in following after them and to understand the names of the defendants and their lawyers.Several cases were discussed, in which the defendants pleaded not guilty. This stage of the cases was the “reading”. The writ of accusation is not read out loud, but the judge and the defendants’ lawyer read them. The lawyer explains to the defendant what it is all about and announces the defendant’s negation of the accusation. At the request of the judge, the defendant expresses his agreement with the words of the lawyer. Dates are set for the phase of evidence on the dates 27/8 – 11/9. One of the cases was the trial we came for:File #9, according to our count. The accused Saad Basem Fatah Allah Yasin, the lawyer Advocate Faras Abi Hassan, prosecutor the NCO Orli Oren.We received the protocol of the proceedings:The chairman of the court identifies the accused.Lawyer (L): hands in a power of attorney. Received and marked S/1.L: the defendant pleads not guilty at this stage.Defendant (D): I agree with the words of L and plead not guilty according to the accusation.L: we have no minor claims and we claim no alibi.Decision: The case is scheduled for a session of evidence on 03/09/06. At this date all witnesses for the prosecution will be invited.Given and announced on 12/07/06 publicly and in the presence of both sides.In the intermission lawyer Faris Abu Hassan explained to us what is ‘reading’ and told us that Saad Basem Yasin has been accused of receiving funds for Antsar A Saghin from an unknown source.Other cases were closed after plea bargains.An example: The accused Karem Kapisha, his lawyer Advocate Halabi.The prosecutor and the lawyer agreed to a plea bargain and suggested a penalty of 6 months prison term, 1000 NIS fine and a conditional term of imprisonment according to the discretion of the court.The judge makes sure that the defendant knows the terms of the writ of accusation which is adjusted according to the terms of the plea bargain and that he admits to his guilt. The charge: giving help on one occasion to the wanted man, who is the brother of the defendant. The help was giving him food. The accused has a criminal past, who has been sentenced in the past for illegal residence (in Israel). The judge adopts the plea bargain and adds unto it 12 months of conditional imprisonment. The fine may be exchanged for another month of prison. The six months prison term will be considered from the day of his arrest on 06/04/06.An other example:The defendant Muhamad Abu Hassan, lawyer Advocate Ahmad Sharab.A plea bargain was reached of 24 months actual prison, 2000 NIS fine and conditional prison according to the opinion of the judge.The accusation: the sale of a gun to somebody and directing somebody else to a deal for obtaining a defective weapon. No weapon was used.The judge adopts the plea bargain and adds 12 months conditional imprisonment up to 5 years. The fine may be converted into two months prison. The actual prison term is calculated from 16/1/06. At this juncture a problem arises. It turns out that the prisoner has been detained in administrative detention since 26/09/05. The judge is angry that this has not been brought to his attention ahead of time, but corrects that 24 months of detention will be considered from the start of administrative detention.Deliberation was to take place in the case of the accused Mahmud Ata Ganem, the lawyer Attorney Faras Abu Hassan, who is present in the courtroom, is substituted by the relatives by the lawyer Lea Tsemel, who has not arrived. The judge is willing to delay the deliberations until a later hour. At 11:00 a pause is declared because of problems in the computer system “magen tsedek”. The judge requests to contact the computer people in Ofer.In the intermission a member of the prison authority accompanied us to the shed for the families. This person was very proud of the shed, of the toilets, of the water faucet and the cold water drinking fountain. He pointed out he cleanliness and said that “they” threw away cigarette butts, but “we” clean up, as fits an enlightened state.The deliberations resumed at 11:40. Seven more files were seen until the noontime intermission, that was decided upon at 12:15. Again on the average 5 minutes per case.In the intermission we spoke to Advocate Lea Tsemel, who had arrived in the meantime.In the intermission we were informed of the occurrences on the northern border.At 13:15 the deliberations resumed. Among others, the case that was taken over from Advocate Faras Abu Hasan by Advocate Lea Tsemel. We have the protocol of this file and I will try to be short.The accused Mahmud Ata Ibrahim Ganem, his lawyers Advocate Faras Abu Hasan and Advocate Lea Tsemel, the prosecutor NCO Orli Oren. The defendant says that Advocate Tsemel represents him, and she tries to explain what causes this misunderstanding. Also against Muhamad, the brother of the defendant, an indictment was served. She thought that the case of Muhamad will be tried in Ofer, since the accused was cought in a village near Ramallah. She did not know that the accused already had pleaded not guilty and she does not know the case, therefore she requests a deferment. The judge understood the opinion of Advocate Tsemel, but did not accept the standpoint of Advocate Abu Hasan, who was changed at the request of the family and thus discontinued his further treatment of the file.The judge fined Advocate Abu Hasan 1000 NIS, with the right of appeal, because he caused the deferment. The session of evidence was set for 08/10/06.An example of atypical proceedings, wherein the Advocate defended the accused with gusto. We have the extended protocol, but I will try to be short.The accused Munir Na’im Mahmud Adwan, lawyer Advocate Ahmad Sharab, prosecutor lieutenant Ilan Abas. The case is in its summing-up phase.The prosecutor hands to the judge a list of previous convictions of the defendant. The indictment this time is membership in a military terrorist gang, whose aim is to perform attacks against Israeli targets and firing one bullet, together with two other accused, towards Israeli vehicles. The prosecutor stresses that the accused was not induced by others into this venture. The prosecutor brings other precedents, where the sentence was nine years in actual prison and requests the court to sentence the defendant to a fitting verdict. The defending counsel concludes with much passion, switches from Hebrew to Arabic and vice versa. The judge makes sure that all is translated. The lawyer tries to prove that the defendant was drawn by others into joining these activities that he is accused of. He holds that the precedents that are brought by the prosecutor not at all fit this case.He points out that the defendant saved time to the court by admitting. Brings precedents where sentences of 20-40 months were meted out.Defending counsel stresses that the indictment was handed down at a time that the defendant was doing another prison sentence and was only one month before his release. During his prison sentence his father died, and he could not attend the funeral. A short while before his prison sentence the defendant was married and was not allowed to see the daughter that was born to him.The lawyer suggests to give him a sentence of 30-40 months prison.The defendant requests to repeat what his lawyer said. Stresses that he was not present at his father’s funeral and did not see his daughter.At 13:40 a pause is declared before verdict is given.In the intermission we talk to Advocate Sharab. The conversation is difficult. He is the son and the father of an educated and well-established family in Tulkarem. He has an office there where employees, his sons and his daughter are working. His father, a lawyer and an officer, was governor of Haifa until 1945. In 1948 they lived in Tulkarem. Thus their many belongings in Israel fell to the Custodian of absentee property. Advocate Sharab deplores the blood that has been shed, but does not believe there is a chance for accomodation.At 13:50 the deliberations resume. The judge hands a prison sentence of five years to the defendant, from the day of his arrest in the first case on 6-11-04, since the crimes were performed before the present arrest and over lapping of punishments is reasonable. Moreover the judge passed verdict upon him of 2 years conditional prison for any similar crimes. He has the right to appeal by law.Deliberations start in a court with three judges.Case # 28 by our count since this morning.The defendant Al’am, the lawyer Haraz.A plea bargain is suggested for 21 years of prison. The defendant pleads guilty to the corrected accusation. The accusation is manslaughter with intent.A session is slated for 01-08-06. Until then the plea bargain will be completed and in the considerations arguments for the sentence will be presented.Case # 29The defendant Saad, Counsel Haraz.A plea bargain was agreed upon of 27 years prison.. The defendant pleads guilty and confirms the plea bargain. The accusation is manslaughter with intent. The dean of judges stresses that the court is not bound by the plea bargain. A session of arguments is set for 01-08-06.At 16:15 the day of deliberations, wherein some 30 cases were dealt with, was over.We asked for the protocols from one of the secretaries. She inquired and said that we may have them, but we should bring paper for printing them. We thought that the three we described were sufficient and those we received.This time we did not describe what went on in the courtroom and the families of the defendants. In front of our eyes we have the picture of one of the mothers, who was shaking all over and crying before her son the defendant.