Translation: Diana Rubanenko
Judge: Shmuel Fleischmann
Police Investigator: Fares Jabar
Advocate Anan Odeh represented the detainees in the two hearings which took place today.
There are 2 cases in the docket, one of a person barred from meeting an attorney.
Farras Nasser Sabti Barghouti, I.D. 904010264
Last week the detainee was prevented from meeting his attorney. From the judge’s summary we understood that the detainee asked to complain about the way he was interrogated. The detainee submitted a written complaint (by means of his lawyer). The judge referred to that letter, in which he claimed that he was not given time to rest, and was hit during the interrogation.
He was barred from meeting an attorney until Thursday. His attorney,Maamoun Hashim, met him once the bar was lifted.
Following the questions of Atty Odeh, Judge Fleishman informed him that an answer to the complaint had arrived. He read and signed it.
The police requests another 19 days of detention to continue the investigation.
The detainee is suspected of the following felonies: activity against regional security, membership in a hostile organisation and combat materiel (unclear whether for trading or possession).
As always, there was an exchange of questions and answers between the defence attorney and the police investigator. Today the answers were slightly more detailed, but mostly longer, and the summary was as always: 'it's in the confidential report'.
Question: Activity against regional security, clarify what activity.
Answer: Activity endangering regional security. I cannot provide the details at the moment, the material is in the confidential report.
Question: What does he admit to?
Answer: Membership and activity.
Question: Does he admit?
Answer: Partially, there are other directions in the investigation that we need to examine in order to reach the truth.
Question: What do you intend to do next?
Answer: Several more interrogation actions, to examine the suspicions that we have against him. There are other suspects connected to the same offences. Contradictions have arisen in the suspects’ versions. We have to examine what is the correct version.
Judge Fleishman read to the defence attorney the timetable of the conducted interrogations after the detainee submitted his complaint letter. He said that the timetable in fact seems reasonable to him. In the middle of one day of interrogation, there was even a visit by members of the Red Cross.
The defence attorney summed up and argued that 45 days of interrogation is certainly a substantial period for an investigation. Nevertheless, the police still want 19 more days. During part of the interrogation period, the detainee had been barred from meeting an attorney. He requested to reduce the number of investigation days, and if possible, to transfer the case to the prosecution.
The judge’s summation:
The matter of the suspect’s detention has been discussed twice (at the detainee’s request) in the military Court of Appeal. His arguments were rejected. The investigation is very complex, and each time that the suspect is interrogated, the investigators discover new suspicions. Moreover (the judge cites a paragraph in the confidential report), there are grounds for the suspicion that the detainee is concealing things.
He also notes that he received a detailed explanation regarding the suspect’s complaints about being hit.
Nevertheless: this is a matter of a suspect detained since 18.4.11 His continued detention and interrogation is necessary.
He extends detention by a further 11 days, for the purposes of the investigation.
Sam Odeh Rantissi, ID 978392371
The suspect is prevented from meeting his attorney from today, for another 4 days.
The police investigator requested 15 more days. The suspicions: membership [in an illegal organisation] and activity against regional security. The defence attorney requested details. The investigator replied: I can't give you any.
The suspect was arrested on 22.5.11. For part of the time he has not been allowed to meet an attorney. He admits to the suspicions 'in a very partial way'.
He was incriminated by people, some of whom are under investigation.
The suspicions "are very serious, a question of general and also specific activity that I cannot specify' - from investigator’s reply to questions by the defence attorney’s representative.
We were removed from the court [seen that the detainee was barred] and the suspect was then brought in.