Russian Compound, Jerusalem - Stone Throwing, Remand Extension
Translation: Diana Rubanenko
Judge: Maj. Aryeh Durani
Police Investigator: Nissim Argaman
Defence Advocate: Attorney Aama Naji
There is one case in the docket:
Wadiya Ruslan Wadiya Hizmeh, I.D. 851613398
The detainee was born in Israel and is now a US citizen. He was arrested the day before he was to return to the USA.
The charge: Participated in disturbance of public order, and threw stones that caused injury to a person. The event took place in Hizmeh – his birthplace. He was arrested on 3.12.10.
The investigator requests a remand extension of 15 days.
The previous remand extension was granted on 16.12.10. Justice Lieberman agreed then to extend custody by another 5 days, because he did not see sufficient reasons in the police report for extending it longer.
In presenting his arguments, the defence attorney stressed that the investigators have no basis for seeking to extend his client’s remand, since they do not have sufficient proof, apart from polygraph tests which the detainee failed twice. He wants to understand why his client’s freedom has been revoked for twenty days, without sufficient proof.
Adv. Naji tries to elicit information from the investigator on the status of the investigation, and the new charges. The investigator refers all his questions to the confidential reports.
The judge tries ‘to help’ the defence attorney – expresses his understanding that the attorney is groping in the dark, and replies to most questions instead of the investigator. He identifies with the defence attorney, but understands that the investigator ‘cannot volunteer’ confidential information.
So the attorney wins sympathy, but no information.
The judge asks the investigator why so many days are needed - a number of days that exceeds the quota recommended by the law. The investigator explains, and the judge seems to understand.
The police persist in requesting 15 days, due to the gravity of the charges and the status of the investigation.
The defence attorney seeks the detainee’s release, or a reduction in the days of remand, because the evidence is very tenuous and it seems unlikely that the continued investigation will ‘augment’ the charges. He asks the court not to accede to the investigator’s request.
At the end of the presentation of his arguments, Adv. Naji expresses his surprise, that while under investigation, his client was constantly told that his attorney was being paid to represent him. He fails to understand what is unusual about this; it is the detainee’s right to be represented by the attorney of his choice. Adv. Naji requests that his remarks be made known to the investigators.
The judge’s summation is prolonged, he explains and explains again, and decides to grant another 8 days of remand extension.