Shooting

Translation: Marganit W.

Courtroom 4

Judge: Major Meir Vigisser

The list of cases I requested from the court contained almost cases, comprising of:

-16 illegal entries into Israel– those leaving the territory without permit

- 6 users of fake documents

- 7 accused of membership and activity in an unlawful organization – or holding a

  position or providing services to such organizations,

- 9 rock throwers or manufacturers/throwers of incendiary objects

- 8 vehicular violations

- 6 attacking a soldier or disturbing the peace (for the most part during an

  unauthorized demonstration)

- 14 property violations

- 1 shooting at a person

- 1 possessing and trading in combat materiel

- 1 some kind of disturbance and 6 various criminal activities.

The two cases I describe below belong to the category “disturbing the public peace”.

Military prosecutor: Officer Adiel Shulhani

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati

Fares Faruk Fares Bader,ID 852271253–Case 2629/11

Fares is a resident of a village near Ramallah. He is released on bail.

Charge: In 2011 Fares took part in an “unlawful” demonstration outside Ofer Prison [Note that permits for demonstrations and rallies are never given in the Occupied Territories].

From the judge’s description: “…during the march, he struck the fence… and climbed on the barbed wire trying to hang a flag and pictures. He caused damage to the fence.”

In sentencing, the judge acceded to the defense’s request to hand down only a suspended sentence, but declined to forgo the fine “for such an insignificant violation”.

The judge’s argument for leniency: “lack of details regarding the damage, the young age of the accused and his clean record… no additional aggravating circumstances… and the fact that the violation happened more than two years ago.”

Penalty: one month suspended sentence and a 200-shekel fine.

Abdullah Mahmoud Muhammad Abu-Rahma,ID 997446703 –Case 4512/12

A resident of Bil’in

[See earlier cases against Abdullah Abu-Rahma- also].

He is released on bail.

Charge: Engagement in public disturbance.

Abu-Rahma, too, took part in an unlawful demonstration outside Ofer Prison.

Two months ago the defense requested the investigation report, but the prosecution has not yet responded; it requested a week’s extension.

Thus, the hearing of the case was postponed to 8.7.13 at 13:30.

An example of a case from the category “property violations”:

Alaa Ribhi Hassan Abu Alohua,ID 9968900091 –Case 4738/12

The accused is 40 years old, father of 4

[I don’t remember the attorney’s name]

He is accused of stealing 20 aluminum sheets from a plant in Mishor Adumim.

Sentence: 3 months suspended sentence and a 500 shekel fine. 

Translation: Marganit W.

As you all know, we cover only a minute number of hearings of the military courts and only a tiny fraction of the proceedings are revealed to us. And yet, over the last six years, we have noted a few salient characteristics of the conduct and the activity of the arm of the occupation known as the “Military Court”. Today, for example, the hearings were a veritable ‘conveyor belt’; all the detainees in the cases we witnessed were arrested after being incriminated by others, and the charges were violations committed in the last few days as well as the last few months or even years.

A joint docket of Courtrooms 1 and 2 included 65 names of “Days Detainees” brought in for remand extensions. Some were minors (reportedly kids under 12 years old - which is the age of criminal culpability – whose hearings we did not attend). Those detainees were brought before the judge for the first time since their arrest.

In Courtroom 3 a ‘reserves duty’ judge (probably due to the holiday) named Wolf presided.

Two defendants were charged with drug dealing. They were represented by two attorneys: Abu Ahmad and Abir Merar. The discussion was about the quality and quantity of the pills purchased and hidden (it was alleged) in the underwear of one of them, and discovered at the checkpoint. It was not clear to the judge, the prosecutor and the defense if the pills in question were Viagra or Ecstasy. The only thing that was clear was that the two were detained “until the conclusion of the proceedings”.

Since we did not attend the entire sessions we are not sure why this case was processed in a military court.

Courtroom 1

Judge: Lieut.-Col. Shmuel Kadmani

Prosecutor: Capt. Avishai Kaplan

Waspi Nafez Oda Zeita,ID 949959977 –Case 2397/13

Accused of carrying a weapon in the year 2011.

Waspi accepts the charges and Atty. Haled Alaraj reaches a plea bargain with the prosecution. The judge accepts it and pronounces his decision:

31 days in prison from the day of arrest, 3 months suspended sentence for 3 years (to ensure that he does not repeat the offense or any other offense relating to arms possession), a 7000 shekel fine or 7 months incarceration.

The agreement (approved by the judge without hesitation) states that Waspi has no prior conviction; for a brief period he held a gun belonging to the Palestinian Authority, making no use of it. He showed the gun to someone. Admission of guilt was a condition for obtaining a plea bargain, but the charge lacked sufficient evidence to convict!

It is a vain hope that one of these days a judge will pause to consider one of these hundreds of plea-bargains and determine that it is a trumped up arrest. There is no such term as “trumped up arrest” in the lexicon of the military courts.

Ahmad Salim Taher Ziud,ID 993177864 –Case 2439/13

Ziud was arrested on Friday at a Checkpoint.

The prosecution requests detention until the conclusion of the investigation. The defendant states that a checkpoint policeman had told him he did not need a check-up because he is over 55. When he entered the checkpoint he was arrested. Atty Abu Yakoub requests a 6-day postponement to reach an agreement with the prosecution. The judge approves (until 2.4.13).

Bahaa Issa Muhamad Bashar,ID 854839628 –Case 2392/13

The detainee, 18 years old, is accused of throwing rocks at security forces, together with 20 other people. He was implicated by three soldiers who were on the spot. The prosecution requests detention until the conclusion of the investigation, invoking endangerment and the fact that another participant in the incident was detained by the court until the conclusion of the investigation.

Bahaa rejects the allegations. He claims not to know why he is detained.

His attorney, Nasser Nubani, explains that Bahaa was on his way home from work when he encountered a demonstration near his home. He was present there without throwing any stones, he has no prior convictions, and the soldiers’ testimony is prima facie evidence.

The judge decides to detain him until the conclusion of the investigation.

Arraignment date set for 2.4.13.

Courtroom 2

Judge: Major Avri Einhorn

Two plain cloth investigators bring in the suspect, Alaa  Muhammad Ahsa Hadr, ID 402195853  for remand extension.

Alaa, 16 years old, has already been detained for 4 days but has not been interrogated.

The charge is throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails and involvement in shooting.

The investigators request 15 days remand.

Atty. Munther Abu Ahmad states that Alaa is a minor and that until his court appearance he has not been given a reason for his detention. The investigators’ answers reveal that the charges are based on incriminations, some by other detainees. The charges refer to incidents in the recent as well as in the distant past that took place at different locations on Route 443 as well as in his village. The defense moves for reduced detention and asks for judicial supervision of the investigators.

The judge orders 15 days remand (until 7.4.13). At the defense’ request the judge orders the detainee held in the court compound until 15:00 to allow him to appeal the court’s remand decision. 

Translation: Marganit W.

Courtroom 2

Judge: Major Etty Adar

Prosecutor: Lieut. Dvir Wiesel

There were 27 cases in the docket. We sat in the court for about two hours. 11 defendants were brought in groups of four. Their hands were free but their feet were chained. Members of the families arrived and the detainees conducted some sort of dialogue with their loved ones. The only one who was not happy was the guard from the prison authority whose nap was interrupted. The judge was quite tolerant of the commotion.

Ahmad Samih Ahmad Hatab,ID 403816022– Case 2070/12

Ahmad is accused of “shooting at a person”.

Today is a memorandum hearing. The defense is Atty. Ismail Tawil.

The case opened a year ago and the judge is anxious to conclude it. “I have to pronounce a sentence,” she pleads with the defense. (The law in Israel stipulates that a legal procedure has to conclude within 9 months. Until recently, in military courts, it was two years, but this must have changed recently).

There is no indication what has happened during the year that the defendant was in jail.

An evidentiary hearing was set for 3.4.13 and for witnesses’ testimony for 10.4.13

Leit Bassem Mustafa Alksabra, ID 414843227 –Case 4840/12

Accused of membership and activity in the Popular Front [for the Liberation of Palestine], from 2011 until his arrest (?)

During this period he put posters on walls, carried flags and attended meetings of an unlawful organization.

Atty. Firas Sabah was absent today and his replacement, Mahmoud Hassan, requests a postponement.

Yusuf Salah Yusuf Zaharan,ID 852905843 –Case 2649/12

A concluding hearing was set for today.

Yusuf is a young man, not a minor. He’s been in prison for many months and so far has not confessed (to the charge of “possessing and trading in combat materiel”). Today the sides have reached an agreement: the prosecution will amend the indictment and the defendant will accept the charges.

Atty. Haled Alaraj is replaced today by his relative Ibrahim Alaraj, who leaves from time to time to consult his “boss” who is busy in another courtroom and occasionally pops in to say a word to the defendant or the family and even argues for a moment before the court.

The judge enumerates the amended charges: the defendant entered Israel on various occasions during 2011; at the end of 2011 he purchased an improvised hunting rifle and 5 bullets, which he used for hunting. At the beginning of 2012 he purchased 24 bullets in Nabi Saleh. Yusuf accepts the charges. The prosecutor asks that the court forfeit the rifle. The defense agrees.

The punishment the court meted took into consideration Yusuf’s clean record, his admission, his young age and the fact that the rifle was improvised.

Sentence: 13 months in prison; 2 months suspended sentence for 5 years and a 2000 shekel fine.

Ibrahim and Haled Alaraj represented 8 defendants in today’s session. Most were from Al-Aroub, arrested during 2012. At the defense’ request 7 hearings were postponed to later dates.

4 of them were the following:

Abed Alhakim Muhammad Awad Tamimi,ID 936508258 –Case 1174/13

Charge: throwing objects

Deferred to tomorrow, 4.3.13

Nader Haled Slame Gandi – ID 854466653 – Case No. 4775/12

Charge: manufacturing and throwing an incendiary object

Deferred to 20.3.13

Muhammad Adnan Said Asa’is,ID 85481568-Case 4778/12

Charge: manufacturing and throwing an incendiary object

Deferred to 3.4.13

Omar Muhammad Aassi Shehade,ID 858645872-Case 4777/12

Charge: Manufacturing and throwing an incendiary object.

Omar Shehade objects. He wants the trial concluded today, not postponed. Haled Alaraj is summoned to tackle his wayward client. After a short conference with Omar, Atty Alaraj hands the judge his resignation. The judge tries to reason with the defendant: “I have not examined the evidence yet, but according to the charge sheet, we cannot finish the procedure today. If you confess to the charges, we can finish, but if you don’t accept all the charges, we need to summon witnesses in order to pass a verdict… I want to protect you, so I will give you 5 minutes to confer with your attorney…” She also extols the attorney’s experience and his ability to help the defendant.

In order to enable negotiations to take place, the hearing was postponed to 10.4.13.

I found the judge’s active intervention in client-attorney relations puzzling. During the entire morning session she made no comment on the conduct of the two attorneys (working in tandem) representing most of the defendants, even though there was a tacit rivalry between the attorneys in court as to who would represent one of the defendants whose attorney was absent today.

Courtroom 5

Judge:  Lieut. Col. Shmuel Kedar

This judge has 46 cases, all concerning remand extensions. We attended a hearing in the case of two Wallaje residents caught in Israeli territory and detained since Thursday night (three days ago). When arrested they had no permits to stay within Israel.

Attty. Abir Mrar handled their case and she was present in court. But as of today Atty. Ali Sahar represents them. He explains that as residents of Wallaje, they possess permits to stay in Israel that are called “expulsion prevention documents”. Those papers had been deposited at Ofer Prison, and he offered to retrieve them and present them to the court today, so that his clients could be released.

Translation: Marganit W.

Hagit’s report

We waited for an hour and a quarter to be let in.

The “Inivisible Man” behind the opaque glass window told us repeatedly, “The law says that the families are admitted first”. There were many families there, crowding the fenced waiting area. Needless to say, we have no quarrel with the families: our presence in the court does not deprive nor does it cause delays to the detainees’ families who have enough trouble trying to see their loved ones. Many families still have to waste long hours in the inner area of the court, after they have been through the security checks and before they are allowed to attend the hearings.

It is not the families that delay our entrance but the faulty entry procedures into the courts – these procedures often prevent us from attending the hearings. Over the years the obstacles at the entry to the Military Court in Ofer have become more and more cumbersome.

The Military Court should respect the principle of “public hearings” and enable us to carry out this principle of transparency.

Courtroom 2

Judge: Sgt.-Maj. Menahem Lieberman

Prosecutor: Capt. Asher Silber

There are 26 cases in the docket. In an hour and a half we heard 7 cases, all at some stage dealing with plea bargain. Five were deferred to a later date. All postponements were at the request of the defense for various reasons: to allow negotiation with the prosecution, to examine a newly revised charge sheet - that may expedite admission and hence agreement – etc.

In two cases there were agreed-upon bargains between the sides; the court accepted the agreement and pronounced a verdict. The procedures are routine and well known to us. Sometimes, we have trouble hearing them because the judge – as was the case today – dictates his decision to the typist at lightening speed.

Even though there is not much new in what we hear during these trials, our observation of these proceedings makes us wonder: As active collaborator in the maintenance of the occupied territories, the military court “cultivates” a pool of Palestinians who supply the various security forces with detainees who are questioned, interrogated and sentenced, thus maintaining an entire ‘security industry’. Watching adult detainees who in the past (when they were minors) had been sentenced to prison or given  suspended sentences, then keep returning again and again to detention, one realizes the active role that the punitive system (military judges, prosecutors and to some degree the defense attorneys) plays in fostering the criminality that it purports to eradicate.

Yusuf Ahmad Muhammad Aliyan,ID 850363664 –Case 2138/12

In a revised charge sheet Aliyan admits to conspiring to shoot at IDF forces. The defense, Atty, Akram Samarra had reached an agreement with the prosecution and the court accepted it.

The judge states that the violation consists of words, not action. The defendant and a friend hatched a plan, which did not come to fruition. The judge sentences him to 16 months in jail, plus 10 months suspended sentence for 3 years starting with his release, plus 2000 shekel fine or 2-month additional jail time.

This is the defendant’s third violation in the last few years. The judge describes this as

“escalation in the danger he poses, since his previous convictions”. The judge underlines the severity of the violations, had the plot been carried out: it would have posed real danger to human life.

Mussa Abed Al-Karim Issa Dar Srur,ID 53111374 –Case 2370/12

Mussa is accused of providing services for Hamas.

His attorney, Iliya Theodory asks the court to accept the agreement reached with the prosecution. The judge accepts it and pronounces the sentence: 9-months time served, 12 months suspended sentence for 2 years, and 700 shekel fine or 7 month in jail.

The defendant requests the court to convert one month of incarceration into a fine so he could resume his business activity. The judge turns him down, explaining that he is reluctant to deviate from the agreement because the charge involves Hamas, a murderous organization, and he needs to send a clear message to the public.

Norah’s report

Courtroom 1

Judge: Major Amir Dahan

Prosecutor: Captain Mu’ira Sarhan

Defense: Atty. Akram Samarra

Muhammad Abed AlMajeed Abed Alsamed Hamad,ID 411580699 -Case 4262/12

The detainee is a 24 year old man from Silwad.

Charge: arms possession

The parents were present in court.

The prosecutor reported that an agreement had been reached for a plea bargain. Since this is a repeat offense (possession of the same gun) the penalty will include activation of a suspended sentence from the previous record.

The defendant accepted the charges, adding that he did not endanger state security: the gun was kept as a souvenir.

Sentence:

5 months time served

Activation of the suspended sentence: 5 months cumulative and 3 months overlapping. Altogether 10 months starting with the day f arrest.

18 months suspended sentence for 3 years.

2000-shekel fine.  

Another trial – with a 3-judge panel – was supposed to take place afterwards. After a long wait it transpired that the Jail Security Service did not transport the defendant from prison to the court and the case was deferred to a later date.

Translation: Marganit W.

Russian Compound

Judge: Kobi Suderi

Police Investsigator: Omri Awida

Defense: Atty. Firas Sabah, Atty. Judd Kadmani

The hearing started an hour late.

There were 9 cases in the docket, all with agreements between the defense and the police.

The judge was highly motivated to impose order in the court: he asked the attorneys not to lean on his desk, not to talk among themselves, to sit down, not stand; he called the interpreter to order when he left the hall and demanded that the commander of the detention center show up when the policemen brought in the suspects after a long delay.

Thus all 9 cases had to be heard in an hour and forty minutes.

Recently, in the village of Fajer, near Bethlehen, there have been incidents of shooting at vehicles on the main road. Most of the cases were connected to these incidents. We gathered that dozens of Palestinians from Fajer had been arrested, and the investigations were complicated.

We would like to highlight one particular case, because it demonstrates the unbearable lightness with which the police requests, and receives, remand extensions from the judges.

Ayman Nader Mubarak, ID 911062297.

He’s been in detention for 35 days now.

The police investigator requested an 8-day remand, and then “he will probably be sent home”.

The judge examined the documents and realized that the file had nothing in it. However, instead of releasing Ayman on the spot, he remanded him in custody for 4 days and instructed the police to determine after 4 days if the case should be passed on to the military prosecution or the detainee should be released!

Translation: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound

Judge: Menachem Lieberman

Police investigator: Omri Aweida

The defence attorney: Judd Kadmani

5 cases in the docket, one of whom was barred from meeting an attorney.

Abdullah Ibrahim Mohammed Aljuarish, ID 860178490

The detainee's mother attended the hearing, hugging and kissing her son.

The parties consented to add another 8 days of interrogation, until the following Monday, and then to transfer the case to the court in Ofer.

Murad Ali Awad Asacra, ID 941191181

The parties consented to 8 more days of interrogation, until 7.1.13.

Abed al-Hakim Mohammed Awad Tamimi, ID 936508250

The investigator sought to extend the interrogation by a further ten days. The suspect was arrested on 17.12.12.

This is the third remand.

He is suspected of involvement in a shooting attack on the settlement of Halamish, on 13.12.12.

The defence attorney asks: Has there been progress in the investigation?

Investigator's response: The investigation is ongoing, there has been no real progress in the suspect's case, but there's been progress in investigating the affair altogether.

The defence attorney asks: Is there new evidence?

Investigator's response: Yes, there are new detainees.

The defence attorney asks if the respondent denies knowledge of the act and/or involvement in it.

The investigator replies: Yes, he denies it.

The defence attorney sums up: He opposes the remand request. This is the third extension. The detainee denies his involvement and maintains that the only thing he did was answer his neighbour's question whether there were police or military checkpoints on the road. He did not know and did not know why he was asked. He had no part in the incident.

The judge's decision: The investigator claims that the suspect's release could interfere with the investigation, but lengthening the investigation will result in the suspect's continued detention which would violate his rights.

In the previous extension, the court ordered the transfer of the detainee's file to the prosecution, but this was not done. Justice Lieberman extends the detention for another 4 days for further investigation, until 3.11.13.

It is probable that by that date, the investigation team will decide if it is necessary to continue the detention or to choose the alternative option and free him.

Firas Mohammed Zuheir Asnaf, ID 910626829

The detainee is barred from meeting his attorney.

We observed the part when the defence counsel was present, and the detainee was absent. The defence attorney asked questions about the progress of the investigation concerning the alleged murder: firing at Halamish.

The investigator seeks 15 more days for questioning. There are no new suspicions.

The investigator answers the defence attorney's questions simply by stating that the detainee has linked himself to the incident.

When we are asked to leave the hall we, as usual, show the judge the pre-Supreme Court document recommending that we be permitted to remain present during both parts of the hearing in order to maintain the principle of public trial (the part where the detainee is brought before the judge without the presence of counsel, and the part where the defence attorney presents his arguments in the absence of the detainee).

Judge Lieberman took the pre-Supreme Court document and said: this document was given by Osnat Mandel, Head of the Supreme Court Department on 20 May 2009, while Natanel Benichou, at that time the deputy-president of the Military Court of Appeals, recommended complying with the pre-Supreme Court document. However, there have recently been changes in the court's position. A new decision handed down by Judge Ronen Atzmon of the Military Court of Appeals stipulates that MachsomWatch women be not present at hearings regarding detainees barred from meeting with their attorney.

We left the Russian Compound. 

Translation: Marganit W.

Russian Compound

Judge: Shalom Dahan
Police Investigator: Omri Awida
Defense: Attorneys: Ahlam Haddad, Judd Kadmani, Firas Sabah

There are 8 cases in the docket. On two an agreement has been reached, three are of minors and one is an adult, all from the village Hussan.

Remand extensions in this court take place twice a week: Mondays and Thursdays. The number of days in detention here is supposedly decided by the circumstances of the interrogation. In fact, the number of days that a judge decrees is determined largely by the two days the court convenes. We saw this in today's decision: two detainees were remanded for 11 days so they could appear on Thursday; five detainees got 8 days - until Monday. On those days the judge will again determine the detention according to the court's calendar. The judge and the attorneys agreed that had the defendant been tried at Ofer Military Court - where remand extensions are held 6 days a week - their detention would probably have been shorter and the investigation quicker.
 

Hassin Sami Hassin Shabana - ID 921744116
 

Defense: Judd Kadmani
 

The investigator requests additional 15 days to complete the investigation.
Hassin lives in Sigin. He was arrested on 1.12.12, late at night at his home. Since his arrest he has been interrogated twice but not brought before a judge. This is his first remand extension.

The charges are activity that endangers security in the area, throwing rocks and participation in illegal gatherings. We learn from the defense's questions that the arrest was based on intelligence. The defendant denies the allegations. The attorney objects to such a long detention, which relies on intelligence and not on evidence.
 

The judge asks the defendant if he has anything to say. The latter responds: I have a headache. I asked for a pill but did not get any.
 

Judge’s decision: 8 days remand extension to complete the interrogation.
 

Kadri Jamil Rabi'aiI Aldroik - ID 902754084

Defense: Firas Sabah

The defendant is a resident of Hebron. He is a prisoner, having been arrested three years ago and sentenced to 8.5 years for membership and military activity in Hamas. He is interrogated on new allegations connected to the original charge. This is the third remand extension.

The attorney says that despite repeated interrogations there is no progress.
The defendant was told that he had been incriminated and is suspected of shooting. There is no other evidence. The interrogators insist that there is progress. The defendant denies the allegations, claiming that he does not know the guy who incriminated him.
As for his health, the defendant tells the judge that he has an earache and suffers from diminished hearing. When he was arrested, grenades were used
and that damaged his hearing.
 

The judge remands him for 8 more days and asks the interrogators to speed up the process.
 

Ismail Ibrahim Ali Hamamara - ID 860028133

Defense: Ahlam Haddad

The Investigators requests 8 more days.

The minor comes from the village Hussan. He is 17.5 years old. We were not asked to leave the court even though it is an investigation of a minor suspected of throwing rocks at an Israeli vehicle, which resulted in a severe injury to
one passenger.
 

Most of the defense's questions were answered by "It’s in the Secret file".
The minor was arrested on 1.12.12 before dawn. As a minor he should not have been arrested during the night. The GSS interrogation was conducted under conditions that do not apply to a minor. His family was not told where he was held, and he was not given an opportunity to consult an attorney regarding the specific allegation. He had no idea why he was detained and interrogated. The interrogation lasted 15 minutes: he was threatened that if he did not confess, he would rot in solitary confinement. Has anyone identified the suspect or seen him commit the crime? Who saw him? What was his role in the incident?
The police requests 10 additional days. Is there basis for the detention? Why 10 days? What investigation was carried out in the 72 hours since his arrest? The detainee is a senior in High School with no prior record.
Atty. Haddad moves to release him.
 

To the judge's question, the boy says he has a broken hand (from before the arrest) and underwent back surgery on 27.10.12. Before the arrest he went every week for check-ups. On 1.12.12 he had a doctor appointment, which he missed because of the arrest.
 

The judge refers the medical problem to the prison doctor. He explains that due to his tender age and clean record he remands him to 8 more days in custody.
 

Muhammad Hamed Abed Alaziz (Hamamara) - ID 854084969

Defense: Judd Kadmani

The defendant is a 17.5-year old minor from Hussan. The prosecutor requests ten more days. The charges are the same as the previous case referring to the same incident.
The defense objects to such a long remand. The defendant gave a statement to the police and is cooperating. The defense also invokes his young age.
 

Judge's decision: Due to his young age and cooperation he extends his remand by 8 days.

Ramah Yunas Fatah Hamamra - ID 859688459

Defense: Ahlam Haddad

Another minor from Hussan arrested on the same charges of rock throwing.
Atty. Haddad sums up: The basic rights of the minor have been violated (regarding the hour of arrest, the investigation and access to council). He was not given respite during the interrogation - which is a blatant violation of his rights. He gave a statement to the police; keeping him in detention is meant to put pressure on him to confess.

Decision: 8 days remand extension.

Abed Al Hamid Sami Abed Al Hamid Hamamra - ID 858316205

Defense: Ahlam Haddad

This defendant is also from Hussan. He is charged with the same violation of rock throwing. However he is not a minor. All questions to the prosecution are answered with reference to the "Confidential file".
As for his health, the defendant tells the judge he is under mental pressure and has a fever.
Due to his distress, the judge awards him 8 more days in detention.

Sami Yussuf Mahmoud Abu Arkub - ID 907546949

Defense: Firas Sabah

Taer Issa Aziz Baradaya - ID 936746460

Defense: Judd Kadmani

In both cases an agreement had been reached between prosecution and defense. Both ended with 11 days remand extension to complete the investigation.

Translation: Marganit W.

Continued coverage of the trial of Amir Ibrahim Haled Sabarna  (ID 852783190 - Case 5001/11. Resident of Beit Ummar.
 

Judge: Major Meir Visiger
Military Prosecutor: Lieutenant Avishai Kaplan
The interpreter was busy playing with one of those new electronic gadgets and often forgot to translate.
As for the typist: I suggest she works on improving her Hebrew spelling.
Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati.
 

The report on Amir Sabarna's trial could have been one of those boring reports where the facts are rehashed ad infinitum: who was up and who was down, what did you see before you had a drink and which way were you looking before you turned etc. etc. But in this case someone has overstepped the bound and the trial has broadened and mushroomed; all this because in Sabarna's case a soldier shot him in the shoulder, and this cannot be glossed over or shoved under the rug. A judge cannot ignore blood, hospital and medical records, and declare, "Case closed."
 

Norah Orlow reported on this case on 12.12.11and 19.12.11.
Amir is accused of throwing rocks, assaulting a soldier, resisting arrest, and rampaging - but after all this violence, he was the one shot and injured. In an earlier session, having sat for hours in the court at Ofer, he coughed, spat blood, collapsed and required medical attention.
His parents told us that two of Amir's brothers are also in detention, one of them (Rami Sabarna) sat with him in the dock. The other brother is incarcerated at Etzion Facility. Why were they arrested? The readers can hazard a guess. A correct answer will garner a prize.
Atty. Nery Ramati examined the shooting soldier and the officer who later took the statement. The quest for truth in these cases is a complicated endeavor: first a questioning officer, then an interrogator and then an investigator who takes the detainee's statement - this thrice-kneaded dough will then be baked into a bread.
The officer who took the statement is Itay Vazana. He has a law degree, but Atty. Ramati made mincemeat out of him in court. He means to disqualify his testimony because the officer does not tell the truth. This entire process was aided by an audio recording of the interrogation. Atty. Ramati, the judge, the prosecutor and the interpreter  (who translated every word into Hebrew) and even Sabarna himself, were all listening to the recording. A tense silence prevailed in the court, while everyone tried to listen and follow: it is not every day that the defense undermines a policeman's testimony using the latter's own recorded words.
So I thought to myself: true, we have an occupation here, but not a dictatorship.
Interrogations are recorded, nothing is hidden, the defense receives the relevant material, and in the court, both sides, the judge, the defendant and his family, together with us and 10 ‘Psychoactive’ representatives can watch and listen.
What is to become of Amir Sabarna? We don't know yet. The trial is to resume on 15.1.12. We'll see what the recordings, democracy and enlightenment will yield, and more importantly, whom will the judge believe?

Ashraf Ibrahim Ahmad Dar Abu Rahmah - ID 906435698 - Case 5012/11,
resident of Bil'in.
Judge: Major Meir Visiger
Prosecutor: Lieut. Eugenia Agranash
Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati
 

The defendant has become famous all over the world because a soldier, Leonardo Corea, by order of Brigade commander Omri Burberg,  shot him while he was bound and blindfolded;  also because his brother, Bassem Abu Rahmah, aka "El Phil" was murdered in April 2009 by a soldier who pelted him with a teargas canister at close range during a protest at Bil'in. His sister, Jawahar Abu Rahmah  choked to death from teargas during a demonstration in Bil'in in December 2010.
At the center of the defense interrogation was the question: was Ashraf arrested for participating in a protest, or was it retaliation for the prosecution of two soldiers (following the incident where the defendant was shot in the foot). The battalion commander Omri Burberg was convicted and his promotion was delayed by two years.
Two witness testified today: The present commander of the Northern region,
Lieut.-Col. Roman Kaufman (with a leg injury, a limp and a cane – reason unkown) and Sgt. Tom Hai Tsausho.
The defense presented a video on his computer, showing the demonstration when Abu Rahmah was arrested. He confronted Kaufman with erroneous
statements made during the interrogation. Asked if he is aware of the defendant's record of resistance to the occupation, Kaufman says he is: he has seen a picture of the protest in the paper. Atty. Ramati asks, "You saw the defendant during the demonstration, you saw what he did and yet you did not arrest him until the end, when the protest was over and Abu Rahmaeh was running after the jeep with a flag." The commander replied, "There are two possibilities, either I did not see him, or I was walking and not riding in the jeep." He also said, "Maybe I was wrong."
The sergeant testified that he was operating a contraption called Alpha, which lobes gas grenades. He knows about the incident involving the shooting of Abu Rahmah, because after the soldier was arrested he spent a few hours with the detainee, who told him about the incident.
Here too, the defense used interrogation records stored in his computer. Personally, I regard all this as window-dressing , as an attempt to camouflage the
iniquities of the military courts. Apparently, the system realizes that states are judged by their human rights record, so a certain pretence of fair trial has to be maintained.
The tragedy of the Abu Rahmah family deserves broader coverage. This report cannot do justice to it.
Evidentiary hearing will take place on 15.1.12 at 13:00. Another witness for the prosecution will testify, as well as the defendant, and a few defense witnesses.
The rest of the defense witnesses will testify on 18.1.12.

Translation: Marganit W.

Follow-up on cases reported earlier.

Sausan Mahmud Hussein Hamamda– ID 8526341 - Case 5487/11

Judge: Major Meir Vigiser

Prosecutor: Major Nathanel Kola

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati

[See previous report regarding Sausan’s case]

Sausan came to court from her village Umm-Fakara in South Hebron Mountain, accompanied by her father. Present in the court were two activists from “The Village Group” and one (f.) activist from the “Women Prisoners Committee”.

Eventually, Sausan was obliged to accept a plea bargain: she admitted attacking a BP officer (with a rock, as specified by the indictment), but she rejected the claim that she had been warned by soldiers – in Arabic – during the incident, and she also rejected the claim that she tried once again to beat the soldier with a rock.

In his decision the judge wrote that “understandably, the accused was upset… due to the fact that her house was about to be demolished…”

Sentence: 8 days of time served, to coincide with her detention, plus one month suspended sentence for two years, plus 3000 shekel fine (deducted from the 5000 shekel deposit).

Sausan’s cousin, Amal Hamada, a minor, who was arrested with her, was not charged.

Amir Ibrahim Haled Sabarne– ID 852783190 – Case 5001/11, a resident of Beit Ummar

Judge: Major Meir Vigiser

Prosecutor: Lieutenant Avishai Kaplan

Defense: Nery Ramati

(See previous report regarding his case)

Amir’s father was present in court.

Several witnesses for the prosecution were summoned to testify today. Again, 2 witnesses – both soldiers – did not show up. The excuse was that the summons had been sent to their commander, not to them. Another witness was delayed, sending word that he would appear at noon. Another witness was at the gate, but the prosecution requested half an hour to brief him before his testimony. Thus, much time was wasted, while the accused sat on the bench, his feet shackled, visibly uncomfortable. [Reminder: the man was shot in the back when he was arrested and one of his lungs was injured].

The only witness to report to court was the 17-year old minor, Muhammad Bahar (who was at large) who had also taken part in the protest at Beit Ummar on 12.10.11.

During his examination the witness was asked what he saw when the soldier shot at Amir, and whether he – Muhammad – held a rock in his hand that he was about to hurl at the soldier. The witness recanted what he had said to the police, claiming that the soldier was standing on his feet when he shot Amir (not lying down as he had told the police). He explained why today he was giving another version: before he was brought to the police, he had been interrogated (twice) by people who beat him; he ended up telling the police what they wanted to hear, fearing they would send him back to those who had beaten him.

The witness’s examination continued in the afternoon. Then 2 soldiers were brought in to testify about what had happened during the demonstration. This evidentiary hearing went on and on, and at one point the defendant collapsed and lay on the floor spitting blood. A medic was called and Amir was taken out on a stretcher.
We reported the case to Doctors for Human Rights.

The evidentiary hearing will continue on 26.12.11, morning and afternoon sessions. If the case is not concluded, another hearing was set for 2.1.12.

Mustafa Muhammad Yusuf Odeh– ID 976862854 – Case 5406/11, resident of Wallaje,

50 years old  

(See previous report regarding his case)

Judge: Sergeant-major Ronen Atzmon

Prosecutor: Atty. Major Orit Pargi Bechar

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati

The defendant’s mother was present during the proceeding.

A BP testified for the prosecution. He gave an eyewitness testimony of the incident:

“The witness was acting up when he was arrested. He fought with the policeman and fell with him from a height of 2 meters [the BP officer was injured – he is the one lodging the complaint].

-Who pushed whom?

-The policeman was closer to the crag, so apparently the defendant pushed the officer…

In cross-examination the witness admits that he did not see “an actual push”.

The prosecution presents a film taken by one of the protesters [Mazin Qumsiyeh, also arrested during the protest, but released a day later]. In the film the defendant is seen falling together with the officer.

After viewing the film, the prosecutor said, “We still maintain that the defendant caused the officer’s fall from the terrace, even if the court finds that the defendant was the first to fall down…”

An evidentiary hearing of the case is set for 2.1.12., when the injured BP officer is scheduled to testify.  

Translation: Marganit W.

On 23.11.11 we reported on the hearing of Mustafa Muhammad Yusuf Odeh from the village of Wallaje – ID. 976862854 – who was arrested on 13.11.11  for allegedly attacking a policeman and for participating in an unlawful demonstration.

Justice Vigiser released the 50-year old man to partial house arrest. At the same time, the judge acceded to the prosecution’s request to halt Odeh’s release for 72 hours to allow the prosecution to submit an appeal.

The prosecution indeed appealed. The hearing took place on 7.12.11 before Justice Lieutenant-Colonel Nathaniel Benishu, who rescinded Justice Vigiser’s decision and ordered Odeh to remain in custody until the conclusion of the proceedings.

And so Mustafa Odeh’s trial began today - Case 5406/11

Judge: Sgt.-Major Ronen Atzmon

Prosecutor: Captain Odelia Kardoner

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati

Earlier, the defendant had rejected a plea bargain, opting for a trial.

His mother was present in the court.

The defense stated that the accused denies all the allegations in the charge sheet. On the day in question he had come back from medical tests and happened to encounter a demonstration against the separation wall that is being built in around the village. During the riots, he and a soldier were pushed from a terrace and fell down. Soldiers immediately sprayed him with pepper spray and arrested him. A video shot by one of the protesters records the incident. The defense asked the court to watch the video during the first evidentiary hearing set for 19.12.11 at 13:30. Witnesses for the prosecution (soldiers) will also be summoned to the hearing through their commanders.

Courtroom 5

Judge: Major Meir Vigiser

Prosecutor: Captain Michael Avitan

Defense: Atty. Nery Ramati

Evidentiary Hearing.

Defendant: Amir Ibrahim Haled Sabarna – ID 852783190 – Case 5001/11

Resident of Beit Ummar, a 22-year old student

In custody since 12.10.11.

His mother and another relative are present in court.

The charge: throwing rocks at security forces and attacking a soldier.

On the day of his arrest there was a demonstration at Beit Ummar [or as the charge sheet calls it, “mass disturbances”] in which Amir took part. When a soldier tried to arrest him he resisted physically. When two other protesters joined in, the soldier took out his gun and shot Amir in the back, as he said “because he feared for his life.”

The wounded man was taken to hospital: one of his lungs was damaged by the shot. Three days later they began to interrogate him.

The prosecution summoned two witnesses.

Witness No. 1, Sgt.-Major Avi Ben-Lulu from Hebron Precinct – he took the defendant’s statement on 16.10.11.

The witness explained that since the accused was injured, he was not interrogated right away. At the Ofer detention facility he only took preliminary deposition so he could ask for remand extension. He interrogated the accused in Arabic, but wrote it down in Hebrew. Amir signed the statement after its content had been translated to him into Arabic. The recording machine malfunctioned so nothing was recorded. The file was transferred to Gush Etzion Police. This witness states that he was not in charge of the investigation, the police investigators at Gush Etzion were.

-Did you tell them “he claims that he was shot in the back?”

-I don’t remember what I said.

Witness No. 2: Sgt.-Major Motti Ohana [who ‘questioned’ the minor who incriminated Amir Sabarna]

The witness testified that he has been serving in the police for 21 years, in intelligence and detective work. For the last four years he has been employed as “questioner”.

In cross-examination the defense asks him to explain the term.

A. It means interrogating the suspect, before the investigation.

Q. What are the rules of “questioning” as distinct from interrogation? What about documentation?

A. After the initial questioning the suspect is transferred to an interrogator who records and documents the testimony in depth... The ‘questioners’ have more time… they save the interrogators’ time, in fact, they make the system more efficient.

Q. Before the investigation?

A. Before or after…Never during the investigation.

Q. You deposed him on 16.10.11, but the accused had already told his version on 13.10.11, so what was the point of the questioning? He had already been interrogated.

The witness explained that he has more time at his disposal than the interrogator.

Q. The accused started to confess right after his interrogation at the police… “The questioners beat me up” – Is the accused lying? Did you beat him up?

A. No way. We hear such complaints a lot lately.

Q. Had you recorded the interrogation, we could have checked the allegation.

A. I don’t agree. A liar is a liar.

Q. Is there a difference between questioning a minor and an adult?

A. With a minor you have to notify the parents.

Q. Are you a juvenile interrogator?

A. No…

Q. Did you follow the Juvenile Law?

A. As it is written…. But there’s a difference between questioning and interrogating.

Q. Does the Juvenile Law cover this? For instance, the fact that the parents have to be present?

A. This does not apply to Palestinians citizens. There has been an amendment in the last two months….

Q. How long did this questioning last?

A. Can’t say for sure… about half an hour.

Q. And this is what it yielded? Ten lines?

The attorney later stated that he was not familiar with the proceeding and had no knowledge of that document [produced by the ‘questioner’]. The (minor) witness should have been summoned and given a chance to give his version.

The judge decided that after hearing the (minor) witness, the court will rule as to the admissibility of the document.

The minor will be summoned to testify on 19.12. 11, together with other prosecution witnesses.

To be continued next week.