Russian Compound, Jerusalem - Holding and trading of combat materiel, Remand Extension
Translation: Diana Rubanenko
Judge: Shalom Dahan
Police investigator: Moshe Levy
Defence Attorneys: Attorneys: Naji Aamer, Maamoun Hashim, Aamer Yassin
There are 3 cases in the docket.
Abdullah Hashem Abdullah Jubara – ID 936110626, age 17
(see previous reports: from the Russian Compound: 27.12.10
and from Ofer: 3.1.11 PM)
The detainee is from Turmus Iya, near Hebron.
Defence Attorney Aamer is not with the detainee; he is probably in a hearing at the Military Court in Ofer.
The investigator announces that the parties have reached an agreement to extend the remand by another 8 days.
The investigator sums up: the suspicions against the detainee are:
throwing stones, throwing Molotov cocktails, and holding combat materiel. There is an agreement, and of course the defence counsel is aware of it.
Judge Dahan turns to the detainee and asks if he knows about the agreement, and if he agrees to it.
He goes on to explain to the detainee that he has the right to object, and asks him whether the defence counsel has informed him about the agreement, and when he last met his counsel.
The detainee replies that, no, he was not informed about the agreement by his attorney; he last saw him two weeks ago.
Concerning the agreement – no, he didn’t agree to that agreement. He has already been under investigation for 36 days, and now they're adding more days of interrogation. He doesn't understand why.
The investigator insists that there is an agreement, while the judge insists that the detainee is entitled to object. He requests that the detainee be able to contact his attorney by phone, and suggests that the detainee leave the court and return after talking to his attorney. The judge emphasises the detainee’s right to object to agreements reached behind his back.
Hassin Amin Hassin Kalaula, ID 939079554, resident of El Bireh (Ramallah)
Defence counsel: Attorneys Aamer Yassin / Maamoun Hashim
The investigator asks to extend remand by 8 days, to continue the investigation. The suspect was arrested on 25.12.10 on suspicion of ‘membership and activity [in an illegal association]’, ‘abetting [consulting, helping or causing an offence]’ and ‘holding combat meteriel’. The suspect gave evidence on 2.1.11. The investigation material shows that the investigation is complex and sensitive, and requires the investigating team to continue examining the suspect.
Attorney Hashim: asks the investigator if it's true that the detainee is being investigated for teaching the Koran in a Ramallah mosque. Does teaching the Koran endanger state security?
The investigator refers to the confidential report and adds: the answer to the defence counsel is general, but the judge has more material and details of the matter.
Meanwhile the judge, who is reading the reports and memoranda, asks the investigator to explain, why there is a discrepancy between the number of days that the investigator is asking for - 8 days - and the number of days that the GSSis asking for - 22 days. Is there a mistake? The investigator is asked to check the matter.
The judge asks the detainee about his interrogation. The detainee claims that for a week he wasn't interrogated and they asked him "ordinary questions" every day.
Meanwhile the investigator has checked the above discrepancy and clarifies: yes, there is a mistake, they wanted 22 days although the detention order states 8 days.
The judge suggests to the defence to agree to 8 days; there has been a mistake, that is well worth takeing advantage of, because in view of the confidential material, 22 days seems reasonable.
"I am extending remand by 8 days".
The detainee Jubara is brought back to court after talking on the phone with his attorney – the latter convinced him to agree to an extension until 17.1.11.
“Guests” now enter the remand courtroom: the father and the pregnant wife of the detainee, whose case will be handled by defence attourney Yassin. The investigator explains (apparently to us), that the presence of relatives is a is part of ‘public hearing’.
Louai Fahmi Abed Al Majd Nasser a-Din, ID 043135623
The detainee is from the Jerusalem area.
The investigator lists as charges: ‘membership and activity in a hostile organisation’, ‘providing services to a hostile organisation’, transferring of funds to terror organizations.
The investigation team requests another 12 days of interrogation. The suspect was detained on 23.12.10, and this is his third remand extension.
The investigator adds that the reason for requesting more days is the situation of the investigation so far, not a specific clause.
The defence counsel asks whether it is true that there are no other grounds for his detention.
The answer: it is in order to get to the truth.
Q. Is it true that until the detainee gives a statement that you think is true, you won't let up?
Q. I have spoken to the investigator and the detainee. The suspect gave his version, and you want him to give an interpretation that matches your expectations. The investigator wants the detainee to admit that the money came from a specific source, and that he transferred it to another specific source.
Q. What do you mean ‘no’?
A. It’s in the confidential report.
The discussion focused principally on the investigation, which seems to have included verbal violence, threats and curses, and apparently lasted for hours.
The discussion revolved around each side’s "truth" - the truth that the detainee is being asked to admit, and the truth of the detainee.
The judge’s decision: I have examined the defence counsel’s claims that the detainee was abused during the interrogation. I have requested that the matter be dealt with. I have seen the confidential material and decide to extend his remand by another 8 days.