Ofer

Share:
Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Email
Observers: 
Hava Halevi, Norah Orlow
Dec-13-2007
|
Morning

Translation: Marganit W.

Courtroom 3: Appeals
Three judges at the bench: Aharon Mishnyot (presiding), Nathanel Benisho, Eli Wolf.
Counsel for the defense: Atty. Juad Boulus
Representing the prosecution: two military prosecutors, Erez Hasson (in charge of the prosecution) and a person in civilian clothes.
No relatives were present (but were suddenly located towards the end of the sessions).
 

Case No. 4662/07
– continuation of the prosecution appeal of Hassan Yusuf Dar Halil. It is the sixth time he is accused of membership in an illegal organization. He is a heavy-set man, dressed in gray and unshaved. Last week, it will be remembered, Erez Hasson, head of the prosecution, ordered us to leave the court to “prevent the publication of the session’s protocols on the internet.” In the following week, the esteemed court ruled that civilians – namely, us – can be present in the court while the defense presents its case. However, when a SHABAK (General Security Services) representative testifies, civilians cannot be present. However, this week, too, the entire discussion focused on the “in camerainfo-icon” issue. 
Defense: I have two preliminary comments: First, I object to the inclusion of Justice Wolf on the panel because he officiated twice in earlier trials of defendant Hassan Yusuf Halil, and twice he ruled against him, which detracts from the objectivity required in order to render justice in the case.
The judges considered this argument and smiled pleasantly. On the whole, there is a feeling that the judges treat the counsels for the defense condescendingly (“Let the young men arise and play before us”).
The second preliminary objection: the defense does not understand the presiding judge’s decision to hold the trial in camera. This contradicts Justice Lieberman’s intermediary ruling which guaranteed security and enabled the witness to testify behind a screen. The discussion today focuses only on the previous ruling and whatever was not allowed then, will not be allowed today. Facts that were not brought before the previous court will not be heard here, either. There is no reason to open part of the discussion and close another. Thus, he requests that the trial be open to the public. 
Erez Hasson, (head of the prosecution): as for the disqualification of Justice Wolf: The entire panel is cognizant of the fact that this is the defendant’s sixth accusation. According to this logic, the entire panel should recuse itself.
The judges rejected the two preliminary objections, and their arguments will be included in the verdict. The rest of the trial was conducted behind closed doors. We stayed out for one hour. When we came back, the court discovered that family members of the defendant were not present. The soldier in charge said that there were no relatives outside, but as is often the case, there WERE relatives there. The defendant’s wife and daughter were let in for two minutes, AFTER the session was over, and then the guards hastened them out.

The trial was postponed to 16.1.2008 at 9:30.