Ofer - Stone Throwing, Holding and trading of combat materiel
Translation: Marganit W.
Judge: Lieutenant-Colonel Ami Navon
Prosecutor: Police Officer Natanel Yacov Hai
There was unusual commotion in the court today. Attorneys kept coming and going, talking among themselves. Prison Authority officers chatted audibly. The judge tried in vain to impose silence. He severely reprimanded one family sitting at the back of the court, even though their contribution to the racket was minimal.
Defendant: Amar Mutalak Ayoub Ragbi,ID 91702173– Case 2826/12
Defense: Atty. Avi Baram.
The defense argues against the prosecutor’s request for remand extension until conclusion of proceedings. The attorney says he was given the charge sheet only earlier today and needs time to read the material. He points out that there is another indictment against a witness in this case. He asks to examine the witness’s case, since the defendant denies any connection to the charge (due to the commotion I was unable to hear what the charge is).
The hearing was postponed to 4.6.13 over the prosecutor’s objection. The judge insists there won’t be another extension.
Muhammad Abed Al-Rasoul Dar Saed – ID 854854312 – Case No. 2790/13[See attached Defense: atty. Neri Ramaty
Charge: throwing rocks at Border Police during a riot at Silwad Junction on 27.4.13
The prosecution requests detention until the conclusion of proceedings. The charge is based primarily on Prosecution Witness No. 6, the soldier Adam Zilberberg who identified the defendant based on direct eye contact with him and recognition of his clothes.
The defendant is 19.5 years old. He does not live in the area where the incident occurred. He admits he was on the scene; he saw security forces arrive but he denies throwing rocks.
Atty. Ramaty claims there was no credible examination of this single testimony:
1. The soldier says: the commander identified targets and told us whom to arrest. Namely, there was at least another soldier who could testify, but only Zilberberg was deposed.
2. The prosecution claims that the defendant threw rocks at the security camera. Thus, there should be pictures of the incident, but that too was not investigated.
3. The prosecution claims that the defendant was present on the scene since that morning, whereas the defendant claims that he arrived ten minutes before the incident. In other words, he claims to have an alibi, which can be checked.
Atty. Ramaty cites a precedent reinforcing the argument that an alibi can be raised as early as a remand extension hearing. He cites a ruling stipulating that in cases where the evidence is weak, as is in this case, an alternative to detention is warranted. The father and a cousin of the defendant are present in court and they are willing to vouch for him and watch over him in the village.
The prosecutor objects to this motion. He cites decisions by the Military Appellate Court that says, “rock throwing together with others, during public disturbances constitutes endangerment” adding, “whoever raises his hand at the authorities during a riot… is bound to do it again.” The security forces must be protected and this can be guaranteed only by this man’s detention.
The court decides against an alternative to detention, since at this early stage of the trial one incrimination suffices; nothing else is needed to justify remand extension. Moreover, the identification by the witness is certain. The judge approves the remand extension, setting an arraignment hearing for 28.5.13 before Justice Meir Vigisser.
Defendant:Issam Balout, ID859090631 - Case 2683/13
Defense: Atty. Sha’aban
Charge: Carrying, possessing and manufacturing weapons.
Defense: As for the first charge, Witness No. 2 is known in his village as a collaborator who carries arms. The Israelis know that he keeps a gun and have allowed him to keep it for many years.
As for manufacturing arms – “if you mix soap with a rock and add electric wires, do you get an ‘object’? This is nonsense. The charges are trumped up.”
Judge: The defendant admits to some of the charges against him.
Decision: remand extension until the end of proceedings. The court heard the arguments for the defense, and they may be raised at the arraignment hearing, which is set for 28.5.13 before Justice Major Vigisser.
Remand extension of the suspect Lawi Mushara , 22 years old (no other details available).
Atty Munther Abu Ahmad represents the suspect, but the details of the case are still known only to the judge. The prosecutor requests 15 days detention.
The attorney questions the police officer before the defendant – who is barred from seeing his attorney – is brought in. The ban on meeting the attorney will expire in two days, on 9.5.13.
At the police officer’s request, the attorneys are required to leave the court. We remain even after the others go out. The judge warns that if the suspect speaks, we too may be required to leave. Atty. Abu Ahmad leaves and the suspect is brought in.
The judge scans the confidential file, turns to the suspect, but the latter says nothing.
The judge pronounces a 7-day remand extension.
Khalil Masri, ID853615441
Atty. Ahlam Hadad represents Masri, who is on hunger strike.
Two members of his family are in court (his father and a young woman, perhaps his wife or a sister). When Atty. Hadad apprises him of our presence, he smiles at us.
Hadad states that Khalil was subjected to harsh interrogation, lasting day and night, despite his medical condition. She demands immediate treatment for her client.
The court extends the remand by 7 days ordering the prosecution to produce an indictment by that time. The judge also demands a detailed report of the days and hours of the interrogation, so he can verify the defense’s claim that the interrogation was harsh.