Ofer - Incriminators, Incitement

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Email
Nitza Aminov (reporting)

Translation: Tirza Sandbank


"This is a perfect example of groundless  accusations and fabrication of  indictments",  concisely formulated by Gideon Levi , Haaretz, 31.5.15.


In my previous report, I gave a detailed account of the arguments brought by Judge Balilti who recommended granting bail to Khalida Jarrar. He supported the claims of the defense concerning the long postponement of the indictment and did not think that there was any endangerment connected to this member of parliament.

The prosecution objected.

Today in court there were diplomats, two representatives from Amnesty, representatives of other organizations, and reporters.


Military Court of Appeals

Presiding judge:  Lieut.-Col. Ronen Atzmon

Objecting: Lieut.-Col. Morris Hirsh and Lieut. Netanel Yaakov-Chai

Defense:  Atty Mahmoud Hassan, Atty Sahar Francis, Atty Khaled al-Araj

Responding:  Khalida Canaan Muhammad Jarrar, I.D. 946614138  -  Case 1969/15


The prosecutor discussed the question of prosecuting the accused now for old violations.  He explained that the respondent has been under surveyance for four years. The main reason that she was not detained until now is because of health problems.  This is also the only detail that the prosecution agreed to divulge from the  confidential material which was presented to the court.

To my mind, the word most often used by the prosecutor was the word "terror" in many variations. "Her terrorist actions", " we are referring to a person who has been a member of a terrorist  organization for a long period of time,  engaging in many varieties of terrorist activities", etc etc

The prosecutor also noted that if the respondent  is convicted of the  felonies of which she is accused, she will be sentenced to at least three years in prison.

The defense reminded the court that the indictment is based entirely on incriminating witnesses who have all been released, and that it is not clear where they can be located and brought to court.

This caused the prosecutor to reply in a very determined way that  "as far as certain people are concerned, even if they are living abroad under a false identity, they can be reached.  No one is unreachable!"

The defense again mentioned how problematic it is to use confidential material: the policy that in a matter of this kind it is permissible to use confidential material is a dangerous policy, because it enables the court to make decisions on the basis of solely confidential material without using evidence that can be inspected by the defense.


The prosecutor said: "It is out of the question that the indictment and the offences in the indictment be based on confidential material."  (To this we can only say, we’ll wait and see! - N.A.)


When the hearing ended,  the prosecutor requested that the decision of the judge be announced in the presence of both sides, in the event that the appeal was rejected, in which case the  prosecution would be able to take immediate action (to activate an administrative  injunction?  N.A.)


We waited for about two hours and then the decision was announced:

The judge overturned the previous decision and accepted the claims of the prosecution – there was no problem with the fact that this was old material, no question that the endangerment took precedence, and even a possibility that the defendant might choose not to appear in court for the discussion!


The first hearing in Jarrar's trial will take place on 22.6.15.


I highly recommend reading Gideon Levi's impressive article.