Ofer

 

Translation: Marganit W.

 

There is limited activity in the courts today. There are hearings only in one of the seven courts. It is not a Jewish holiday, nor a Muslim, Christian or Druze holiday. The Military Court is out on a trip.

 

Courtroom 7

Judge: Major Daniel Kfir

Military Prosecutor: Lieutenant Daniel Mauda and Lieutenant Yossi Brachia

 

There are 16 cases in the docket.

 

One of the detainees is Muhammad Jaber, ID 404436651, a man of about 50 or 60, arrested two days ago and appearing before a judge for the first time.

He is suspected of dealing drugs, but he denies the charges. His case is presented by a policeman and will be given to the prosecution for indictment when his interrogation is completed. He is represented by Atty. Abeer Mrar. She questions the police officer about the evidence on which the allegations are based.

She asks the officer: Where did you find the drugs?

Officer: In the room.

Atty.: Where exactly?

In reply, the officer draws a circle in the air saying: in the space inside the room. (A rather dubious explanation). The officer mentions Ecstasy pills and a large quantity of Hashish – too large for personal use.

The police request a 10-day detention. The attorney requests release on bail. The judge sides with neither, setting the next hearing for Monday 6.5.13.

 

Muhammad Samir Ali Aladam – ID 850087693, a young man from Hebron.

He was arrested at Tarqumiya Checkpoint and is accused of staying illegally inside Israel. The prosecution has divided the charges into three: falsification of an official document, entering Israel with a false document and the use of a false document. The document in question is the entry permit known to anyone who stands at the checkpoint.

The three charges, according to the prosecutor, point to a continuous and systematic activity that is fraught with endangerment. Moreover, in 2007 the detainee was convicted on illegal entry and there was a suspended sentence against him, which is no longer in effect. But this does not prevent the prosecutor from insisting that “these parameters point to recidivism and risk flight… and therefore a remand extension is to be warranted until the conclusion of the investigation…”

 

From personal knowledge of the conditions on the ground – not from ”parameters” – the facts can be interpreted differently: for more than five years Muhammad Aladam has been desperately trying to provide for his family (17 people including some disabled brothers) by infiltrating into Israel, with and without permit. In 2007 he was caught and given a suspended sentence, which prevented him from getting a permit. In the last five months he has been given a permit and gone through the checkpoint with the valid document.

Atty. Mundar Abu-Ahmad claims that the permit is legitimate. His client is a public servant, and since February he has been in and out of the checkpoint without being stopped. The prosecution has no proof that the permit is fake.

 

Now comes the shameful part: Muhammad Aladam asks to address the court. He turned to the judge and said in Hebrew: “I have been going through the checkpoint for eight months with a permit. Why would I want to harm the state? I love the state… I live here” And he reiterated his love for the state where he lives (which apparently does not return the sentiment) and told the court about the hardship his family is suffering.

In the meantime the permit is passed from hand to hand: from the prosecutor to the defense to the judge and back to the prosecutor. The attorney insists that the permit is valid, while the prosecutor claims that he has some document from the Civil Administration which claims that it is not.

 

The judge – whom we see for the first time today – says he wishes to examine the validity of the permit thoroughly and defers the hearing to 8.5.13. Until then, the detainee will remain in custody. He is allowed 5 phone calls at the state’s expense, including the use of cell phone. What about the 17 persons who depend on his work? This is not the concern of the court.

 

Muhammad Abu Awwad, ID 854535937is also accused of the same violation: entering Israel without a permit. He stayed there for 2 days.

His attorney, Munther Abu Ahmad tried to get him released on bail until his trial, because he has no prior record. In the military courts’ book a record consists only of a clash between a resident of the Territories and the military justice. No other ‘record’ is relevant.

As usual, the prosecution requests detention until the conclusion of the investigation because of “flight risk”. The defense suggests conditions that would prevent flight; that means money: 4000 shekel deposit, an Israeli guarantor who would put up 10,000 shekels, plus 7000 shekels more for something we did not get. If Muhammad can meet these conditions, he will be released on bail and the trial will resume on 5.5.13.

The prosecutor immediately asked to defer the decision by 72 hours and the judge acceded.

The hearing took place on 30.4.13. 72 hours will bring us to 3.5.13.  If the next hearing is on 5.5, what’s the point of depositing money, arranging for guarantors etc?

 

Wael Adarah – ID 851588350.

A clergyman from Yata, in the South HebronMountains.

The charge: possession of arms and hunting without a license.

There is a revised indictment but no evidence, so the defense has reached an agreement with the prosecution. If it does not go through, Mr Adarah will be in detention for many months until this is sorted out, so he is is better off accepting the charges.

We don’t know if Mr Adarah actually hunted pigeons, but neither does the judge – there is no evidence.

Atty. Ali Aramin reached an agreement with the prosecution, and the purpose of this hearing is to obtain the judge’s approval.

Mr. Edre admitted to owning a gun and 40 bullets, and insisted that he shot 5 pigeons.

Because of “difficulty obtaining evidence” (in other words, there IS no evidence) the offered deal is: 45 days in prison, and 4000 shekel fine or alternatively 4 more months.

The defense raises the defendant’s status in the community as a clergyman.

The judge accepts the agreement, but not without lecturing the detainee on “what’s expected of a man of the cloth…. It is illegal… the gun can fall into the wrong hands… (No, he does not mean the settlers). Still, the judge allows him 5 phone calls, including the use of cell phone at the state’s account.

 

Ahmad Da’ejna – ID 851842443

Elias Da’ejna – ID 851101873

Mussa Da’ejna – ID 956952402

Kassem Da’ejna  - ID 942503632

 

Defense: Munther Abu Ahmad

 

The defendants are three brothers and a cousin, shepherds from Yatta. Their flock is in the village of Jinba, near Yatta. They drive there in a Mitsubishi – an Israeli vehicle – without a license. We reported about this state of affairs in the past, so we’ll recap briefly:

Palestinians buy used cars from Israelis very cheaply. The PA forbids this practice: it gives licenses, plates and insurance only to new cars. Thus, Palestinians drive in the Territories without licenses and without insurance.

To reach Jinba from Yatta, the shortest way – by 15 km  - is through Israeli territory. The prosecution claims that they have done this routinely (hence the recidivism) In the past, the police and the army did not object. However, now the policy has changed, and they were stopped at Meitar Checkpoint at the entrance to Israel. They are charged with two violations: driving an unregistered vehicle and violating a ‘closed area’ injunction.

The driver, Kassem Da’ejna, denies the allegations, claiming he knows the area well and they were not driving in Israeli territory.

The prosecutor reiterates the danger they posed, their flight risk and the recidivism, requesting detention until the conclusion of the investigation.

The defense, citing Kassem’s denial, requests release on bail.

 

The judge determined that the defendants did not try to infiltrate Israel; they just wanted to take a 15 km shortcut. He said: “The circumstances of the case imply no endangerment; the flight risk can be countered by appropriate release terms; each detainee will pay 2000 shekels, plus 3000 personal guarantee, plus 5000 guarantee by an Israeli citizen. Since they are related, the payment should be made jointly. But the state of Israel also allowed each of them 3 phone calls, including a cell phone, at the state’s expense.

The prosecutor requested a 72-hour delay, but the judge allowed only 48 hours, until noon the next day.

  

 

Translation: Marganit W.

 

Today is the last day of the Druze Holiday Nabi Shuayeb and the absence of Druze soldiers at Ofer is very marked. There were few hearings, all taking place in one Courtroom.

 

At the entrance a soldier informed me that I could not get in: I need a special permit because “this is a secured military court.” At that point I was not aware of the Druze holiday, so I phone Hamdan [Public Relations Officer], who is also Druze. He was at home (I could here children in the background), but he answered right away and took care of the problem.

 

All hearings took place in Courtroom 1

presiding Justice Lieut – Col. Menahem Lieberman [head of the Judea court] .

 

As always, it was hard to follow all the details of each case. I hoped to get the missing information from the protocols, but the interpreter today was a reserve duty soldier who did not know about the option of supplying me with protocols. He did not hear my request, and during the break I found out that the protocols would be available only after the break.

 

Those who do not know that the military courts were instituted after the conquest of the West Bank by dint of military edict and are part and parcel of the system by which the state of Israel, the occupier, controls the Palestinian population, could perhaps infer from the judge’s conduct that the courts are working just fine.

The judge reprimanded one attorney for not wearing a robe and another, who wore a robe, but not a white shirt and black tie.

 

His honor perused every relevant part of the indictment. One case involved a young man from Jahalin. He was brought in by a policeman who then proceeded to serve as prosecutor. The latter informed the court that the young man’s father had told him during the interrogation that the family could not afford a lawyer.

The judge decided on a 6-day remand extension – not 8, as the police had requested – but he was not at all perturbed by the fact that there was no defense attorney.

 

In another case the judge told the prosecutor to amend the indictment [the charge was membership in an unlawful organization] because the incriminator – who was also the recruiter, admitted that the defendant, who denied the allegations, was telling the truth and had refused to join the organization.

And yet, despite the judge’s displeasure with the prosecution’s performance in several of the cases, it was never suggested that until the prosecution checks the facts and prepares a more acceptable case, the defendant could be sent home.

  

 

Translation: Marganit W.  

 

When Tamar and I arrived this morning, hearings were conducted only in Justice Major Meir Vigisser’s court. Most cases involved people caught staying illegally in Israel and rock throwers.

Two minors were brought in, one was from Al-Aroub; as for the other case, after some discussion between the judge and the defense, it was decided to hold it behind closed doors.

We left the court and returned later to hear the case of the other minor and here is our report:

 

Muhammad Abed Al-Wahab Halek,ID 41169827–Case 2569/13

Prosecutor: Lieut. Dvir Wiesel

Defense: Atty. Mahmoud Hassan

 

Aya Kaniuk and Tamar Goldschmidt attended an earlier hearing in this case on 7.4.13.

I recommend reading their report  in their mahsanmilim site. They give a link  to an Adameer/DCI report of Muhammad’s case, which is typical of thousands other cases of young boys: the army raids their house in the middle of the night, arrests them, interrogates them without the presence of a special youth investigator, pressures them to incriminate their friends etc.

 

Muhammad Halek was born in 1998 with a heart defect. Normally, he carries a list of his medications, but he did not have it on him when he was kidnapped from bed in the middle of the night. An earlier order by a judge to have him checked by a doctor had not been carried out. You could clearly see the broken bridge on his teeth, and Atty. Hassan insisted that the judge see it too. In reply to the attorney’s questions, the boy reported being beaten (but that cannot be proved).

The judge includes in his decision an order to give a protocol of the hearing to the court authority with a view to opening an investigation.

We have no doubt that a thorough investigation will follow, the truth will come out and the culprits will be punished.

In the attached protocol [in Hebrew] you can read the attorney’s expert explanation on how youth interrogations are conducted. He listens carefully to the recordings and hears also what the investigators do not want us to hear.

The hearing will resume on Wed. 17.4.13, possibly with a plea bargain.

It is hard to describe Muhammad’s beaming face when he heard that he might sit “only” a month in jail.

 

Outside the court we spoke to Muhammad’s father. His family immigrated to the US many years ago. Today he is a businessman having returned to Palestine a while ago. However, he has lost his ID card and needs to renew his resident permit every three months. One can imagine the hardship facing a man whose family lives in Palestine while he has no guarantee that his visa will be extended and he will be able to live with his family. 

  

 

Translation: Marganit W.

 

Mili’s Report

 

Justice Major Amir Dahan’s Court

Prosecutor: Ashhar Erez

 

Zuheer Omar Muhammad Harub,ID 52890359  -Case 1556/13 -born in 1989.

Defense: Atty. Ilya Teodory

 

Charge: In Jan. 2013, a month before his arrest, the defendant gave his photo and some money to someone (whose name I was unable to hear) in order to obtain a fake ID. On 1.2.13 he showed up at Az-Zaayem Checkpoint and presented the fake ID in order to enter Israeli illegally. He is accused of impersonation and of violation of the “enclosed area ordnance”. He also has a prior record from 2011 for the same felony (Case 5263/11).

The defendant admits the charges. He tells the court that he did it to obtain work. He is not married but his family depends on his earnings. There is no work in the Westbank and he just wants to earn a living.

The court accepted the plea bargain. The defendant was convicted based on his admission. “Although the court understands his motive, he needs to be prevented from repeating the offense.”

Sentence: two and a half months in prison, plus a month and a half resulting from an earlier suspended sentence, in all 4 months. Plus 3 months suspended sentence for three years from the day of arrest and a 500-shekel fine or two weeks in jail.

 

Hamza Abed Al-Rahim Muhammad Talgy,ID 411482458 -  Case 1986/13

Defense: Atty. Muhammad Shdafan

The case was presented to the court after a delay in which the prosecution went looking for the file.

 

Charge: On 24.2.2013 he threw rocks at security forces in the village of Sa’ir.

The defendant accepts the charge.

The prosecutor cites a criminal record. Judge: He has a “considerable [criminal] past”.

Defense: The defendant is an adult now, married with a daughter. He wants to settle down and asks the court to accept a plea bargain: 5 months prison time and a 2000-shekel fine, plus suspended sentence to be determined by the court.

Judge: Having examined the agreement and in view of the defendant’s record, I see no reason to accept the plea bargain right away. I deem the agreement too lenient and in need of revision. The sides may submit an argument justifying the agreement by 14.4.13 at 12:30. Sentence will be handed down on 17.4.13 at 15:00.

Observers’ note: This is the first time we encounter a rejection by the court of a plea bargain reached by both sides and a demand that they present the court with a decision that would justify it.

 

Muhammad Shafiq Abed Al-Rahman Hamail,ID 410742316–Case 4346/12

Defense: Atty. Ibrahim Al-Araj

 

Charge: manufacturing and throwing an incendiary object.

The defense requests a postponement to reach an agreement with the prosecution. In a previous hearing it was concluded that if the sides could not reach a settlement, additional evidence would be adduced.

By a procedural arrangement, testimony by Officer Zuhir Sharef Malki (Prosecution Witness No. 3) will be presented: he identified the defendant among 8 photos as the perpetrator in this case.

The judge explains to the defendant that such a submission, where the witness is absent, will be accepted by the court as if the witness were testifying before the judge. There is no dispute regarding the identification. After consulting with the attorney, the defendant agrees.

The case was referred to ‘internal memorandum’ on 17.4.13 when the sides will report if they have reached an agreement.

 

Hagit’s Report

 

In late morning I sat briefly in two courtrooms and observed 5 hearings. All had to do with rock throwing and reflected various reactions by the court.

Justice Lieut.-Col. Sharon Rivlin-Ahai convicted a boy (born in 1995) based on his own admission of participation in rock throwing at a moving vehicle. The judge accepted a plea bargain and sentenced the defendant to 5 months in prison, 6 months suspended sentence for 4 years and a 1000-shekel fine or two months incarceration.

As is her wont, this judge lectured the convicted boy, admonishing him to mend his evil ways.

 

Two more boys were waiting to be sentenced for throwing rocks: a 15-year old boy, released on bail, waited with his mother for his hearing and a 14 year old brought in shackled, who was sitting in the dock. His family had not yet arrived.

 

In Justice Lieut.-Col. Etty Adar’s court, two defendants were tried for throwing rocks.

Atty. Ismail Tawil represented one of them.

The judge accepted a plea bargain and stated: “The defendant – 18 years old minus 5 days – hurled rocks at a security forces vehicle, 400 meters from the entrance to Ofra [settlement].

At this point the judge sees fit to comment on the ambiguous phrasing of the indictment. The prosecutor peers at her documents, not sure how to interpret the charge: do 400 meters refer to the distance to the vehicle or is it the location of the vehicle? Smiling, the judge comments that there is a difference between the two versions, but “I don’t want to interfere” and she proceeds to hand down her sentence: 4 months in prison, 5 months suspended sentence for 4 years and a 1500 shekel fine, or three months incarceration.

 

It is strange that the judge refrains from ‘interfering with the details of the charge’, but does not refrain from handing down a sentence based on such dubious details. 

 

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.

 

Commission for the examination of violations of suspended sentences

 

Judges Panel:

Chair: Justice Lieut.-Col Dalia Kaufman

Justice Major Etty Adar

Justice Lieut.-Col. Sharon Rivlin-Ahai

Petitioner: The Military commander (represented by Lieut.-Col. Inbar Ofek)

Respondent: Iyad Ata Ahmad Abu Fanoun,ID 9041021340–Case 1314/13

Defense: Atty. Ahlam Hadad, Atty. Nery Reamati

 

Background: Iyad Abu Fanoun was released from prison as part of the Gilad Shalit agreement. In 2003 he was convicted of homicide attempt and of membership in the Islamic Jihad. He was sentenced to 29 years, 9 of which he spent in jail.

On April 2012 Abu Fanoun was again arrested. This came about as a result of changes introduced into the military justice code in cases of prisoners released before their term is up. These changes were discussed while the Shalit deal was under way. The changes enable the IDF and the GSS to re-arrest and detain every ex-prisoner until the end of their original sentence.

I was unable to find a charge sheet – in such cases typically there is no charge sheet and the detainees are tried before something called “Committee for the Annulment of Improved Conditions” (in other words, the release is considered “improved conditions”).

Amira Haas (in an article from 17.2.13) reports that in the cases of Ayman Sharawna and Iyad Abu Fanoun the security authorities claimed that the two had resumed their unlawful activity. However, the evidence against them is confidential and the two vehemently reject the allegations.

On Sunday, 17.3.13 Ayman Sharawna (also released in the Shalit Exchange), who has been on hunger strike for the past 7 months, agreed to be deported to Gaza for ten years.

Atty. Hadad represented Sharawna (and together with Nery Ramati appealed to the Supreme Court on his behalf). The plea bargain with the security authorities, however, was negotiated by Atty. Jawad Boulos.

On Monday 18.3.13 Iyad Abu Fanoun instructed Attys. Hadad and Ramati to enter a plea bargain on his behalf, similar to that of Sharawna.

At this point the defense informed the court that Atty. Leah Tsemel and Atty. Haled Alaraj were joining the defense team. Atty. Tsemel requested a postponement to re-examine the case and negotiate with various bodies. Thus, if there is a plea bargain, it will be negotiated by Atty. Tsemel and not by Hadad and Ramati.

Two defense witnesses were supposed to testify today, but they did not show up. They will be summoned for 14.4.13

  

 

Translation: Marganit W.

 

Continuation of the trial of Ayman Amin Muhammad Nasser, ID 981581068

Ayman is a researcher and activist in Adameer, an organization providing legal protection for Palestinian prisoners. He is accused of membership and activity in the Popular Front [for the liberation of Palestine].

 

Judge: Major Meir Vissiger

Defense: Atty. Mahmoud Hassan

The detainee’s wife and his mother were present in the court.

 

Handala and 200 shekels

Two witnesses testified today. They are probably those who incriminated Ayman Nasser. Both are prisoners serving time in Israeli jails.

Like all evidentiary trials in the military courts, there is a three-way battle of brains going on between the military prosecutors, the defense and the witnesses. Both sides try constantly to “refresh the witnesses’ memory by quoting from the police statement taken during the GSS interrogation: Why did you say this, yet later you didn’t say it? Why did you say one thing to the interrogators and another to the police plants? Is it true that you said this or that to different people? The witnesses I saw in court wore prison uniforms.

The judge advises them not to be afraid: since their trial is over, there is no danger that they will be charged with new crimes. It was my impression that they were not convinced. For the most part they say that they don’t remember, or that they spoke under pressure and threats. This is why both the defense and the prosecution try to “refresh their memories”.

Here is the story: 17.4.12 was a memorial day for the shaheed [martyr] Abu Ali Mustafa, commander of the Popular Front. He was murdered by an Israeli missile in his office in Ramallah in 2001. The military branch of the Popular Front Organization is named after him. In retaliation for his assassination, the new commander, Ahmad Saadat, sent a small unit to kill Rehavam Zeevi [a well known radical right-wing Minister and Knesset member], and they carried out the mission.

This short biography explains why on his memorial day the GSS is on particular alert, conducting searches for suspects in rallies and demonstrations.

On 17.4.12 there were several commemorative events in Ramallah – a demonstration, a rally, a prisoners’ strike and a protest tent.

Ayman Nasser is accused of membership and activity in the Popular Front – an unlawful organization, according to the Emergency Regulations. On that day he gave 200 shekels to one of the organizers of the rally to charter a bus that would take youngsters to the rally and to the demonstration. He himself attended the demonstration. 200 shekels! Where is the money? With the Popular Front?

This sum (we don’t know where it came from and who owns the account) is the basis for the charge of membership and activity in an unlawful organization.

As for taking part in the rally, distributing flags and posters – Ayman Nasser claims that he did not attend that demonstration. At that time he was at the bank in Ramallah, and the bank manager is willing (with no great alacrity, to be sure) to testify.

Still, the 200 shekels were transferred from hand to hand in order to bring people to the rally. “What’s your response to that?” as lawyers would say. Well, the defense claims that Nasser indeed dealt with prisoners’ rights and conditions, but his activity was part of the Public Committee, which is affiliated with the Palestinian Authority. The Committee in fact belongs to the PA and collaborates with many agencies, including members of the Popular Front.

Nasser was also interrogated in connection with his activity as the chairman of Handala Center, which is a cultural center in Kafar Safa, where he lives. The name Handala has political connotations (it means resistance to the occupation). It is also the name of a ten year old boy from the website of a famous Palestinian cartoonist, Naji Al Ali. The boy is always shown from behind, we can’t see his eyes, but we see what he sees through his eyes: scenes of the occupation. We also see the stupid and absurd aspects of the occupation (which we, too, encounter and point out).

HandalaCenteris financed by USAID and the PA: it sponsors lectures, cultural courses and parties. The prosecution tried to show that Handala Center is a hornets’ nest, while the defense tried to show that it is a cultural center.

By the end of the session, Nasser’s activity in the Popular Front had not been proved, but it was obvious that the GSS investigators were very eager to link him to such activity. The two witnesses testifying today reported (besides descriptions of sleep deprivation and threats) that they had been shown a photo of Nasser and were asked many questions about him: they were pressured to state that they had collaborated with him in the Popular Front.

On March 12, the GSS investigators known as Amnon and Gabriel, will testify behind closed doors.

  

 

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:

According to the lists in the four courtrooms operating today (apart from Courtroom 7 where confidential trials of administrative detainees took place that we were not allow to attend) 118 defendants were supposed to appear before the court in the space of 6-7 hours. Only a few would be judged by a panel of judges, most would face a single judge. This is how the court in Ofer operates five days a week.

The charges are varied. According to the dockets of 3 of the courts (in courtroom 5, presided by Justice Shmuel Kedar, the charges are not specified) about forty percent of the charges are in two categories, “throwing objects” and “producing and throwing an incendiary object”. About 25 percent of the charges are for “membership, activity, providing services and holding a position”. The rest are: 2 for dealing drugs and 9 for illegal stay in Israel.

These are random data, but they conform to other sources, mostly the media, reporting on “events” and the army’s conduct in the occupied territories: the Palestinians’ resistance in the villages and in the neighborhood around Jerusalem on the one hand, and the security forces’ actions and display of force in an attempt to quell the protests and intensify the occupation on the other.

 

Courtroom 6

Judge: Major Etty Adar

 

There are 29 cases in the docket. Three of the four detainees on the bench were taken out after a few minutes without any mention of the charges against them. It turned out that their attorney had not arrived (the judge must have assumed that he was taking part in the attorney’s strike). The defendant probably did not know who the attorney was or even if he had been assigned one. The judge set dates for the hearing in March, three weeks from today.

 

The fourth detainee was

Ali Ahmad Abed Alhamid, Ahalil, ID 850622028 - Case 1312/13

Defense: Atty. Haled Alaraj

 

The judge assumed that the defense was from “the Prisoners Association”. Even though the attorney was not present in court, she proceeded with the hearing. She read Ahmad the 9 counts of the indictment, all referring to events in his past: from conspiracy to throwing an incendiary object in 2007, through manufacturing a fire bomb in 2011, to throwing rocks from a distance of 100 meters at security forces during Operation Pillar of Cloud. In the last incident – the judge remarked – the army reacted by throwing gas grenades. I did not hear the judge ask the defendant if he accepted the charges. In any event, it was more like an interrogation than a trial. There was no defense attorney present and no family members in the court.

The judge asked the defendant if he had anything to say. Ahmad asked permission to use the phone to call his parents so they could get him a lawyer.

The trial was set for 23.3.13.

 

Courtroom 2

Judge: Sgt.-Major Sharon Rivlin-Ahai

Prosecutor: Lieut. Agranash Agniahu

Atty. Iyad Misk represents some of the underage detainees on behalf of DCI [Defense for Children International].

 

Muhanned Marshag Alzaakik, ID403898463 – Case 1079/13

The detainee is 14 years old (looks like 7). He is accused of throwing objects.

Atty. Misak requests a postponement due to the unusual circumstances of the case. It turns out that in the recent past Muhanned had been convicted and there is a suspended sentence in effect. When it is activated, he would be transferred to another prison. The family prefers to delay the court’s decision so he can stay at Ofer. Apparently, the conditions there are better.

 

Mahmoud Haled Mahmoud Ganimat, ID855077509 - Case 4557/12

Defense: Atty. Abu Omar

 

Mahmoud is 24 years old. He was arrested on 31.10.12 when a knife he had in his pocket was detected by the scanner at the Cave of the Fathers [in Hebron]. He is accused of an attempted homicide and intent to kill. He does not accept the charges and an evidentiary trial in progress. The defense claims that the evidence is inconclusive and the fact that he did not try to hide the knife raises doubt about his intent.

An agreement between the sides is presented to the judge.

Mahmoud agrees to accept a revised indictment that includes one charge: an attempt to attack a soldier.

The judge accepts the agreement. Her decision: 19 months in prison: 12 months suspended sentence for 4 years and 2000 shekel fine or 2 months in prison.

 

Courtroom 1

Judge: Lieut.-Col. Menahem Lieberman

 

Oudai Raed Ali Nasser,ID 853887156 -Case 2337/12 -a resident of Dir Al Kadis

The violations he is charged with were committed during different events and over years: throwing Molotov cocktails in 2008 while still a minor; rock throwing on two occasions in 2011. Oudai accepts the charges, and his attorney, Jamil Al Hatib, joins the prosecution in reaching a plea bargain, which is later accepted by the judge.

Decision: 12 months + one day in jail; 6 months suspended sentence for 4 (?) years; 4000 shekel fine or conversely 4 months in jail.

 

Milli’s report

 

Courtroom 5

Judge: Lieut.-Col. Shmuel Kedar

 

All the cases involved remand extensions.

 

Caught while on a hunting expedition:

The first 4 hearings involved a group of 4 who were caught while hunting. They are charged, among others, with possession of arms.

 

Fares Jafaraa, ID902923333 – Case 1879/13

Defense: Atty. Ibrahim Nubani

Charge: Possession of combat materiel, carrying weapons, possession of military equipment, arms trading: he bought a hunting rifle for 2000 shekels.

Prosecution: The defendant was well aware of the severity of his acts. 

She requests remand extension until the conclusion of the proceedings, due to the severity and the danger involved in the charges.

Defense: Does not contest the evidence, but contests the danger involved and the cause of arrest. The defendant did indeed buy the rifle, but not for trading purposes. The rifle belongs to him and was purchased only for the purpose of hunting. There is no indication of any other intent. The rifle was in his possession for 6 or 8 weeks.

The defense cites a decision by Supreme Court Justice Bach, which catalogues reasons for arrest according to severity: first category: membership in an organization and possession of arms derived from that membership, or using weapons to commit a crime. In this category detention in prison is mandatory. The second category: possession of weapons as a souvenir or for self-defense, or possession of a hunting rifle for the purpose of hunting. In this category an alternative to prison can be considered. This catalogue, the attorney maintained, has been the basis for courts’ decisions to date, even though the Supreme Court decision was handed down many years ago.

This case falls into the second category. In addition, the defendant has no prior record; he is married and has children. He is not a flight risk. The defense will accept any alternative to imprisonment, including third party guarantee. In addition, the attorney of the other hunting partners will later cite precedents, and the defense requests the court to consider these precedents.

The prosecutor retorts that this case involves “The Area” (i.e., not Israel, where Justice Bach’s ruling applies). The defendant was aware of the consequences of his acts. Had he not been arrested, who knows what the weapon could have been used for. At any rate, he had no permit for the rifle.

Judge: Who grants such permits?

Prosecutor: I don’t know (this was the first of several instances this morning where the prosecutor did not prove her claim).

Decision: The court is bound by a decision of the Military Court of Appeals that stipulates that possession of a hunting rifle constitute a risk that cannot be substituted by an alternative to imprisonment. Thus, Justice Bach’s decision cannot serve as basis for decision in this case. A decision regarding the Area is different than a decision regarding Israel, because of events that take place in the Area. Moreover, the defendant possessed stolen army property (two sleeping bags were found in the vehicle). The judge orders remand extension until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Arraignment session set for 19.3.13.

 

Muhanned Jafaraa, ID910917681 - Case 1880/13

Abed Alsalam Uadi, ID853610947 - Case 1881/13

 

Defense: Shahdi Jaber (private attorney – this is his first court appearance in the Military Court.)

 

It was decided that the two cases would be heard together, since the defendants collaborated in the alleged crime and its circumstances.

Charge: possession of arms.

 

Prosecutor: Muhaened tried to conceal the weapon in a car when caught by the police, which proves that the defendants knew they were committing a violation. Thus, the risk they pose does not warrant an alternative to detention in prison.

Defense: The defendants do not contest the facts of the charge, but there is no ground for imprisonment. They can be released under limiting conditions and not pose a risk. The court should distinguish between the defendants and the others who took part in the hunting trip: in his clients’ case there is a single violation. The Appellate Court distinguishes between someone who possesses a weapon for a short time and someone who possesses weapons and ammunition – “multiple weapons”.

The defendants joined the hunting trip, and their possession of the weapon was negligible. They held it for a short time. During the interrogation they were not asked about awareness of arm possession. They realized there were weapons only when they reached the hunting ground. Both defendants have ‘a clean record’.

The defense cites prior decisions stating that arms possession is no ground for imprisonment, except in special cases. This case should end in their release under limiting conditions. They are not flight risks. Punishment for such violations is not strict. In addition, the father of one of the defendants is in court and offered to vouch for them.

The judge points out that there is no indication which one of the two used the gun.

The prosecutor reiterates that Muhanned tried to hide the gun when they were caught.

Atty. Nubani points out that this behavior falls under the category of self-defense.

Decision: There is a distinction between these two defendants and Fares Jafaraa, since their participation in the hunting trip was limited: one shot and possession of arms for a short time. Thus, they can be released on limiting conditions, provided they post a 4000 shekel each as bond and provide a third party guarantee (by a person with an Israeli ID or entry permit into Israel) for each of them separately.

Arraignment hearing set for 19.3.13

Implementation of the decision is delayed by 29 hours, until 16:00 the next day. The prosecution has to inform the defense by 10:00 tomorrow if it intends to appeal.

 

Hassan Kahala, ID 948357116 – Case 1882/13

Defense: Atty. Ibrahim Nubani

Charge: driving a disqualified vehicle without a driver’s license. A hunting rifle was found in the car.

 

Prosecutor: Driving without a registration license and a driver’s license endangers passersby. There is also the charge of possession of arms. Request: remand extension until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Atty. Nubani moves to dismiss the violation of driving without a driver’s license. He presents a valid license. During his interrogation, the defendant was not asked about a driver’s license (another failure of the prosecutor).

Decision: In view of the fact that the defendant does possess a valid driver’s license, there is no ground for endangerment and an alternative to imprisonment can be mandated. He has to post a 5000-shekel bail and a person with an Israeli ID or entry permit into Israel must vouch for him (it can be the same person vouching for the other defendants).

Implementation of the decision is delayed by 29 hours, until 16:00 tomorrow. The prosecution has to inform the defense of its decision to appeal by 10:00 tomorrow.

 

Fadi Aljaradat, Id 999825672  - Case 1863/13

Defense: Atty. Shadfan (arguing in Arabic).

Charge: carrying, possessing and manufacturing arms.

 

Prosecution: remand extension until the conclusion of the proceedings. Moves to deny alternative to imprisonment by dint of endangerment.

The defendant does not accept the charges. In 2007 he bought a gun from a Hebron resident, but when he realized it was defective, he returned it after 2 hours. He admitted as much in his interrogation, but nothing else. The investigator says that the authorities have information about him, which means that there is no concrete evidence, just some reports. Prosecution Witness No. 2 testified that the defendant owns a weapon of the type ‘U.C’, which does not exist. Had the prosecution caught him with the weapon, they would have taken photos of it and put it in the file, but this did not happen.

The indictment is based on testimony by prosecution witnesses 3 and 4, but their testimonies are not found in the file. The Prosecutor went out to look for the testimony (failure No. 3), while the court waited. Twenty minutes later, another prosecutor walked in: she is responsible for the testimonies in the file. The testimony of Witnesses 3 and 4 have not been found.

One witness reported that during a procession another witness carried a weapon, and he is the one who incriminated the defendant.

(At this point I could no longer follow the sequence of the witnesses).

 

Decision: According to other testimonies, the defendant possessed an Uzi. The only time ‘U.C.’ was mentioned, must have been a slip of the pen. We are talking here about real weapons, capable of killing. This proves that the defendant poses risk and cannot therefore be released. Thus, remand extension is warranted.

Arraignment session is set for 19.3.13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

Translation: Marganit W.

 

I came to observe the next segment in the hearing of Bassel Ali Abu Maria and Yehya Falah Abu Maria, whose case I have been reporting before.

When I got to Ofer, it turned out that the Nadi-al-Assir attorneys had gone on strike indefinitely (because they had not been paid by the Palestinian Authority), so it was not clear which hearings would take place.

I installed myself in Major Shahar Greenberg’s court and watched a parade of minors whose hearings can be reduced to one sentence: “the judge explains to the defendant that due to his attorney’s strike the hearing is postponed.” Justice Greenberg explained that an adult defendant can decide for himself if he wants the hearing to continue without the defense, but when it comes to minors this is not an option.

 

Judge: Major Shahar Greenberg

Prosecutor: Lieut. Agranash Agniyahu

Defense: Atty. Akram Samarra (not present)

Defendant: Bassel Ali Khan Abu Maria,ID 859597908-Case 1991/12

In the previous hearing the family was given an invoice to pay 3000 shekels as compensation for the damaged vehicle [damaged by the rock throwing].

After the previous hearing the father, Ali, was confident that in accordance with the agreement, there would be no more payments and Bassel would be released in two months. I had doubts that there would be no more payments.

This time the father told me that he knew there would be another fine but he was not sure about the sum.

There was no hearing because the attorney did not show up.

A summation hearing was set for 3.3.13.    

 

The trial of Yehya Falah Hamdi Abu Maria,ID 401303540-Case 1156/13

Defense: Atty. Hamza Abu Mizar standing in for Atty. Ahlam Hadad

 

In my report of 27.1.13 I stated that the defendant had denied all the allegations. I cited Atty. Hadad’s strong objections to the indictment and to the interrogation of the minor Yehya Falah. Her poignant questions regarding the way the IDF came to arrest Yehya and Witness No. 2 impelled Justice Greenberg to ask the prosecution if there were ‘confidentiality certificates’ in the file (the answer was no).

I was quite surprised to hear the defense (Ahlam Hadad’s replacement) declare at the outset that there was already an agreement for a plea bargain in the case. Prior to the attorney’s declaration there was a brief consultation between the attorney and Yehya’s father. The former explained to the father that a plea bargain requires paying a penalty. The father looked stunned and requested some time to get organized. Yehya, too, looked astonished.

Summation hearing was set for 3.3.13.