Barred (from meeting with attorney)

Translation: Marganit W.

Russian Compound

Judge: Oren Boaz (Res.)

Police Investigator: Hader Mustafa

Defense: Judd Kadmani

Two cases in the docket, one of a detainee barred from seeing an attorney.

Ahmad Mahmoud Hassin Halifa – ID 852231869

On 6.5.13 we attended Ahmad’s first remand extension. He was arrested on 5.5.13 and charged with throwing rocks and participating in a disturbance of the peace.

Today, 3.5.13, he is brought in for another remand extension.

The Investigator requests 8 more days. This time the charge is different: he is suspected of activity threatening security in the region, popular terrorism and belonging to Hamas.

The defense asks questions (after conferring with the client): were there any developments that led to this new investigation on new charges?

Yes, there were developments just now, the judge says.

The defense asks about the interrogation the suspect has undergone. Was he handcuffed during the interrogation? Was he forced into certain positions?

“I don’t know,” says the investigator.

The judge is silent.

Were there incriminations? Asks the defense.

I can’t answer, says the investigator, the file is confidential.

The defense concludes that there have been many interrogations and the detention should be over. He requests the court to decrease the number of days of investigation.

The judge’s summation: the accumulated evidence points to suspicions against the suspect. There is enough here to convict. Moreover, there has been significant progress in the investigation and that warrantees continued investigation. Hence, remand extension for 7 days.

Raed Issa Hosni Abdel Aziz – ID 405005356

The suspect is barred from meeting an attorney.

Before the hearing begins, the judge asks us to leave. We show him the High Court of Justice injunction that recommends to allow us, MachsomWatch women, to serve as civil observers representing the public.

His honor examines the document and decides that we cannot attend hearings in which the defense is not present.

The suspect was born in 1992. The charge: military activity against security in the region.

Since his arrest he has been interrogated by the Shabak, but not by the police.

The defense wants to make sure the suspect is aware of his rights. The Investigator says, Sure, he signed a form in Arabic.

The defense concludes: he objects to the remand extension requested by the police investigator, i.e., 15 additional days of interrogation.

The defense asks the judge to play the role of the defense when he sees the detainee, since he is barred from meeting his attorney. He adds that this aspect of the judge’s role in remand extensions of “barred” detainees is not very effective.

We left the room and the detainee was led in.

Translation: Marganit W.

Mili’s report

Judge: Lieutenant-Colonel Ami Navon

Prosecutor: Police Officer Natanel Yacov Hai

There was unusual commotion in the court today. Attorneys kept coming and going, talking among themselves. Prison Authority officers chatted audibly. The judge tried in vain to impose silence. He severely reprimanded one family sitting at the back of the court, even though their contribution to the racket was minimal.

Defendant: Amar Mutalak Ayoub Ragbi,ID 91702173– Case 2826/12

Defense: Atty. Avi Baram.

The defense argues against the prosecutor’s request for remand extension until conclusion of proceedings. The attorney says he was given the charge sheet only earlier today and needs time to read the material. He points out that there is another indictment against a witness in this case. He asks to examine the witness’s case, since the defendant denies any connection to the charge (due to the commotion I was unable to hear what the charge is).

The hearing was postponed to 4.6.13 over the prosecutor’s objection. The judge insists there won’t be another extension.

Muhammad Abed Al-Rasoul Dar Saed – ID 854854312 – Case No. 2790/13[See attached Defense: atty. Neri Ramaty

Charge: throwing rocks at Border Police during a riot at Silwad Junction on 27.4.13

The prosecution requests detention until the conclusion of proceedings. The charge is based primarily on Prosecution Witness No. 6, the soldier Adam Zilberberg who identified the defendant based on direct eye contact with him and recognition of his clothes.

The defendant is 19.5 years old. He does not live in the area where the incident occurred. He admits he was on the scene; he saw security forces arrive but he denies throwing rocks.

Atty. Ramaty claims there was no credible examination of this single testimony:

1. The soldier says: the commander identified targets and told us whom to arrest. Namely, there was at least another soldier who could testify, but only Zilberberg was deposed.

2. The prosecution claims that the defendant threw rocks at the security camera. Thus, there should be pictures of the incident, but that too was not investigated.

3. The prosecution claims that the defendant was present on the scene since that morning, whereas the defendant claims that he arrived ten minutes before the incident. In other words, he claims to have an alibi, which can be checked.

Atty. Ramaty cites a precedent reinforcing the argument that an alibi can be raised as early as a remand extension hearing. He cites a ruling stipulating that in cases where the evidence is weak, as is in this case, an alternative to detention is warranted. The father and a cousin of the defendant are present in court and they are willing to vouch for him and watch over him in the village.

The prosecutor objects to this motion. He cites decisions by the Military Appellate Court that says, “rock throwing together with others, during public disturbances constitutes endangerment” adding, “whoever raises his hand at the authorities during a riot… is bound to do it again.” The security forces must be protected and this can be guaranteed only by this man’s detention.

The court decides against an alternative to detention, since at this early stage of the trial one incrimination suffices; nothing else is needed to justify remand extension. Moreover, the identification by the witness is certain. The judge approves the remand extension, setting an arraignment hearing for 28.5.13 before Justice Meir Vigisser.

Defendant:Issam Balout, ID859090631 - Case 2683/13

Defense: Atty. Sha’aban

Charge: Carrying, possessing and manufacturing weapons.

Defense: As for the first charge, Witness No. 2 is known in his village as a collaborator who carries arms. The Israelis know that he keeps a gun and have allowed him to keep it for many years.

As for manufacturing arms – “if you mix soap with a rock and add electric wires, do you get an ‘object’? This is nonsense. The charges are trumped up.”

Judge: The defendant admits to some of the charges against him.

Decision: remand extension until the end of proceedings. The court heard the arguments for the defense, and they may be raised at the arraignment hearing, which is set for 28.5.13 before Justice Major Vigisser.

Hagit’s report

Remand extension of the suspect Lawi Mushara , 22 years old (no other details available).

Atty Munther Abu Ahmad represents the suspect, but the details of the case are still known only to the judge. The prosecutor requests 15 days detention.

The attorney questions the police officer before the defendant – who is barred from seeing his attorney – is brought in. The ban on meeting the attorney will expire in two days, on 9.5.13.

At the police officer’s request, the attorneys are required to leave the court. We remain even after the others go out. The judge warns that if the suspect speaks, we too may be required to leave. Atty. Abu Ahmad leaves and the suspect is brought in.

The judge scans the confidential file, turns to the suspect, but the latter says nothing.

The judge pronounces a 7-day remand extension.

Khalil Masri, ID853615441

Atty. Ahlam Hadad represents Masri, who is on hunger strike.

Two members of his family are in court (his father and a young woman, perhaps his wife or a sister). When Atty. Hadad apprises him of our presence, he smiles at us.

Hadad states that Khalil was subjected to harsh interrogation, lasting day and night, despite his medical condition. She demands immediate treatment for her client.

The court extends the remand by 7 days ordering the prosecution to produce an indictment by that time. The judge also demands a detailed report of the days and hours of the interrogation, so he can verify the defense’s claim that the interrogation was harsh.

Translation: Marganit Weinberger

Russian Compound    

Judge: Eran Laufman

Defense: Firas Sabah, Judd Kadmani

There are 4 cases in the docket, two of them of detainees “barred from meeting with an attorney”. On a third case there is a gag order.

Sami Muhammad Suleiman Ata – ID 854408564

Defense: Atty. Firas SAbah

There is an agreement between the sides: an 8-day remand and transfer of the case to the prosecution.

Yussuf Muhammad Hussni Tahaa – ID 906440128

The detainee is barred from seeing his attorney, Firas Sabah.

Tahaa has been  in detention since 14.4.13 and is barred from meeting his attorney until 2.5.13.

The police investigator requests a 15-day remand extension. This is the second remand extension.

Tahaa is suspected of military activity and providing service to an unlawful organization.

With the detainee out of the court, the defense interrogates the police investigator. He sums up: the suspect, who apparently cooperated with the interrogator, links himself to the charges against him. He provided two statements to the police. The defense sees no reason for such a long remand. True, the investigation is complex, but the suspect does not deny the allegations. He has been barred from seeing an attorney for many days.

At this point we were asked to leave the court so that the suspect could be admitted for his remand extension hearing.

Justice Laufman is not familiar with the preliminary injunction or the Supreme Court recommending that we should be allowed to be present during the hearing. We show him the document and he examines it. The investigator tries to move for a closed-door hearing, but the judge does not accede. He adds our names to the protocol and gives us permission to attend the hearing without the attorney’s presence.

The suspect was admitted into the court and the judge updated him about what had transpired earlier when the attorney represented him. The judge asked him if he was feeling well. When he said yes, the judge handed down his decision:

9 days remand extension to complete the investigation.

Marwan Muhammad Abed Issa – ID 852321066– Barred from meeting his attorney.

Defense: Judd Kadmani

The detainee is suspected of planting an explosive charge and engaging in other military activity against security forces in his area. He has been in detention since 12.4.13 and “barred” until midnight today. The investigator requests an 18-day extension.

The detainee was born in 1991. He was previously detained in 2009.

Atty. Kadmani moves for reduced detention: the detainee has been interrogated more than 30 times since his arrest, under harsh conditions, including solitary confinement. Since he is barred from seeing an attorney, he was deprived of legal counsel for the entire period of the investigation.

As per Justice Laufman’s earlier ruling, we stayed in the remand extension court, but this time the investigator decided to hold the hearing behind closed doors. He asked us to leave the court while he explained to the judge the need for closed doors.

We left. The investigator spoke with the judge, apparently convincing him, so we stayed outside when the detainee met with the judge and with the police investigator.

The judge’s decision: 14-day remand extension to conclude the investigation.

A detainee under gag order

This was a continuation of a hearing from 22.4.13 [See report] where Justice Fleischman turned down a request for closed doors, but maintained a “gag order”, which obtained today as well.

The man has been under interrogation for 45 days. The investigator request an additional 8 days remand. This is the sixth remand extension.

The judge’s decision: 4 more days. 

Translation: Marganit W.

Russian Compound 

Judge: Avri Einhorn

Police Intvestigator: Omri Awida

Defense: Firas Sabah

There were 8 cases in the docket – four of them of detainees barred from conferring with their attorney. In three cases plea bargains had been negotiated between the sides.

Raafan Mahmoud Mussa Hayan – ID 921045200

Charge: planning and participating in a terrorist attack against the settlement of Migdal Oz, throwing incendiary bottles and membership in “Shuhada Al-Aksa”.

The detainee has been barred from meeting his attorney until today, 11.2.13 at 23:59.

The police investigator requested 15-day remand extension to complete the investigation.

The defense objected to the remand extension. Even though this is the first extension in this case, the defendant has been cooperative, he made a statement to the police, and “according to my colleague’s statement” he ties himself to the allegations.

Roni and I decided not to show the judge the document that recommends allowing us, representatives of the public, to remain in the courtroom while the defense has to leave (to prevent contact with the defendant): this judge has already voiced his opinion of the High Court of Justice’s recommendation [see report from 14.1.13]. When the Investigator saw that we were not leaving, he immediately declared a “closed doors hearing” – rather too easily, we thought. The judge accepted this declaration without hesitation, and we saw no point in repeating the futile ritual. We left the courtroom, the detainee was led in and the judge declared a 15-day remand extension.

Mahmoud Daoud Haled Alhabal – ID 853934909

Charge: membership and activity in Hamas.

The Police Investigator requested 11-day remand extension.

Atty. Sabah represented the detainee, instead of Atty. Quasme.

The Investigator stated that his unit would try to complete the interrogation as quickly as possible and transfer the case to the prosecution. There would not be another extension.

The defense objected to the police request. The detainee has already been interrogated for a long time without much progress. He denies the allegations and has given a statement to the police on 7.2.12.

The charges are based on incriminations.

The judge’s decision: After having examined the file and the reports, he decides on an 8- day remand extension. If necessary, there will be another extension later.

Nur Aladin Abed Al-Rahman Ibrahim Alaeruri – ID 852459551

Imad Wajia Abe Al-Jawad Salah – ID 850292756

Both detainees are barred from seeing an attorney. They are both charged with membership and military activity in Hamas, as well as with endangering security in the region.

The police requested 15-day remand extension to complete the investigation.

From the defense’s questions we gather that they are suspected of planning and initiating the alleged violation.

The detainees were interrogated face to face, but not by the police.

The defense asked to cut short the period of interrogations.

We left the court and the Russian Compound.

Translation: Marganit W.

Russian Compound 

Judge: Shmuel Fleischman

Police Investigator: Samir Ibrahim

Defense: Firas Sabah, Judd Kadmani

There are four cases in the docket: two detainees are” barred from seeing an attorney”.

The High Court of Justice preliminary recommendation (allowing us, as citizens, to attend the hearings of defendants barred from seeing an attorney where the defense pleads and where the judge meets the defendant without his attorney) had already been presented to Justice Fleischman several times before. He always objected to our presence in court, so we decided to forgo presenting the document, as is our wont, and walked out, sparing the judge the need to order us out. Thus, the principle of public hearing has been vitiated.

Muntaser  Jamil Abdullah Naesan  - ID 920100690

The defendant is barred from conferring with his defense attorney.

Attorney: Judd Kadmani

The Investigator requests a 15-day remand extension.

Naesan, a resident of Ramallah, was arrested on 17.1.13.

Charge: Endangering security in the region and possession of combat materiel. According to the charge sheet he was caught holding a weapon in his hand.

The defense’s questions are answered with references to the confidential file.

In reply to the defense, the judge comments that the file sounds like Ali Baba tales. A moment of embarrassment ensues: Atty. Kadmani does not understand the judge’s comment and its relevance to the case.

The judge asks Atty. Firas Sabah to explain the Ali Baba reference to his colleague….

In his summation, the defense states that he is opposed to such a long remand, because, at least on the face of it, the case does not require a long investigation: everything there is obvious.

Hiralla Ratab Abdallah Naesan – ID 940624071

Judd Kadmani presents himself as the defendant’s attorney. The judge objects vehemently, arguing that there is a conflict of interests: this defendant is connected to the earlier case of Muntaser Naesan.

The judge asks Kadmani if he is registered with the Lawyers Association, and threatens to write a note in the file about the attempt to represent two defendants connected to the same incident, which constitutes conflict of interests.

Kadmani is astounded (for the second time this morning). He explains that the judge has two cases on his desk, containing information that he, Kadmani, is not privy to. Thus he is not aware of a conflict of interests.

The judge asks to note in the protocol that both attorneys – Firas and Kadmani – represent the defendant, and that Firas will argue the case today.

The judge mitigates his position a bit, noting in the protocol that Kadmani requested to be the defendant’s second attorney.

Both these cases of “barred” defendants relate to the same charge. Atty. Firas is requested to ask questions regarding Naesan’s case. Firas agrees with his colleague Kadmani: he objects to a 15-day remand extension, arguing that the case is clear-cut.

We left the court without hearing the judge’s decision regarding the length of the remand. 

Translation: Marganit W.

Russian Compound   

General information:

The Palestinians continue to oppose the occupation; the army continues to arrest them in large numbers, and more and more remand extensions are issued at the Russian Compound. For several weeks now, we have witnessed 9-11 hearings a day (compared to 3-5 in the past).

On 14.1.13 there were 11 cases in the docket, 3 were “barred from seeing an attorney”.

Judge: Avri Einhorn

Police Investigator: Omri Aweida

Defense: Firas Sabah, Fadi Qawassme

We did not observe all the cases. We’d like to report on one in particular.

Mussa Awad Mussa Awad – ID 852848373, from Hebron.

Atty. Qawassme agrees to an 8-day remand extension, provided Mussa is immediately transferred to Ofer Prison as soon as the investigation is over. Mussa can no longer bear the conditions at the Russian Compound. He has been prevented from seeing his attorney for a long time and his mental state is very poor – he even tried to commit suicide. He found a razor in the bathroom and slit his wrist. He reported being interrogated for 24 hours straight, until 4:30 AM, and he had no one to talk to. This was the reason for the suicide attempt. He showed the judge his wounded hand. Recently, he said, he has been chained to his bed for four days.

Judge’s decision: Transfer him to Ofer as soon as the investigation is over.

We shall report the case to Physicians for Human Rights and to the Public Committee Against Torture.

Our discussion with Justice Einhorn regarding the preliminary injunction of High Court of Justice:

At the start of the hearing we reported to the judge a preliminary HCJ recommendation allowing us to be present in court even when the defense attorney is required to leave.

The judge treated the recommendation as an old document that does not apply to him. He even voiced anger at the HCJ for recommending procedures that they himselves do not follow. The HCJ closes doors when it is necessary, he argued, and does not understand the special needs of military courts! The judge argued that “the only solution is to appeal to the HCJ”. In other words, we had to leave the court.

The judge noted his decision in the protocol. When we requested a copy, the Police Investigator objected, arguing that it includes the name of someone we are not supposed to know. To our surprise, the judge announced that we can obtain a copy only from Atty. Firas Sabah, the barred detainee’s attorney. Firas was taken aback by this responsibility and was not sure what to do.  It was strange to see a judge shirking his responsibility and shifting it to the defense.

In the meantime we have no protocol. We hope to receive it soon via fax.

[The protocol was later received] 

Translation: Marganit W.

Russian Compound

Judge: Ami Navon

Police Investigator: Omri Awwida

Defense: Atty. Mahmoud Hassan, Atty. Qawasme

Three cases were heard, two of them of detainees that were barred from seeing an attorney.

1. Hamza Zakaria Ibrahim Zaul – ID 852843424

2. Ashraf Halil Mahmoud Abu Aram – ID 910763838

3. Muhammad Anwar Mahmoud Zeitun – ID 850996620

Detainees 2 and 3 are the ones barred from meeting their defense

Both are represented by Atty. Mahmoud Hassan.

Hamza Zakaria Ibrahim Zaul

Defense: Qawasme

Accused of attacking a settler and a group of settlers that attacked him in retaliation.

There is an agreement for a 4-day remand extension in order to complete the investigation and transfer the case to the military prosecution.

The police interrogator claims that the charge is “stabbing”, while the defense claims that the detainee had been “attacked”. They agree to the remand extension and to the transfer of the case to the prosecution.

Ashraf Halil Mahmoud Abu Aram

Defense: Mahmoud Hassan

The hearing of this “barred” detainee is divided in two: the first part is conducted without the detainee’s presence: he is represented by his attorney. In the second part, the attorney leaves and the judge and the investigator question the detainee. Invoking the principle of public hearings– and armed with the High Court of Justice preliminary injunction – we ask to be present in the second part of the hearing as well. The police interrogator immediately requests an “in camera” hearing. Justice Navon reads the High Court’s recommendation, listens to the interrogator and then rules that we have to leave the court. He argues that it is a sensitive case and that the court has to make sure nothing leaks outside. “Not by you, to be sure…”

Justice Navon explains that “in camera” means only those who need to know should be present. He says we should trust him on that one.

Ashraf was arrested on 27.9.12. This is his third remand extension. Since 24.10.12 he has been prohibited from conferring with his attorney.

The police investigator requests a 15-day remand extension.

The charges are: military activity against the security in the area, membership in the Popular Front [of the Liberation of Palestine] and providing services for an unlawful organization.

The defense has a few questions:

Q: Has he been “barred” since his arrest? A: Yes.

Q: Has he made a police statement after the last remand extension, 14 days ago? A: Yes, there are two police statements.

Q: Does his statement conform to the charges against him? A: We investigate all manner of activities (refers to the confidential file).

Q: How many hours a day has he been interrogated? Yesterday, for instance. A: Yesterday he was interrogated from 10:45 until 20:10.

Q: How long is the memorandum of such a long interrogation? A: 6 pages (a discussion ensues about 6 pages for such a long interrogation: the judge sides with the investigator: There is no connection between the length of the interrogation and the number of pages).

Q: Was the detainee handcuffed during the interrogation? (The investigator did not know the answer to this question.) Atty. Hassan asks the judge to pose this question to the detainee when the latter appears before him. The judge and the interrogator examine the report and find out that on that particular day the detainee rested in his cell for one hour. The attorney asks a few more questions, but is referred to the confidential file.

The attorney asks the court not to conclude the hearing before he gets Ashraf’s answers to the judge’s questions. Then we all left the court. When we returned, after the detainee’s examination by the court, Justice Navon tells the defense: He was properly interrogated. As for the handcuffs, yes, his hands were shackled but not his feet. Yes, he was given food, was not physically hurt; he may have been mentally hurt, but, says the judge, such injuries are a subjective matter.

The defense sums up: Ashraf was arrested on 27.9.12, and since then has not been allowed to see an attorney. He gave a [police] statement, but the investigators want him to give information that he cannot provide because he has no knowledge. 15 more days is a lot of time! The court should consider his status as a “barred” detainee when it comes to extending his remand.

The judge’s decision: These are serious charges. After examining the file, he decides on a 7-day remand extension.

But here’s a problem: there are holidays during that period, so either 6 or 8 days. Finally, they hit on the right number: 9.

The judge reads his decision to the detainee, in our presence.

Muhammad Anwar Mahmoud Zeitun

Defense: Mahmoud Hassan

The investigator and the judge both explain to the defense that the charge in this case is the same as in Ashraf’s case and that an agreement about 9 days can be reached, saving the court’s time.

The defense agrees, provided that the prohibition to see an attorney is lifted, when its term expires tomorrow. If there is an extension, the defense will have to appeal to the High Court, hence the attorney needs to know for sure that the prohibition is not extended. The investigator goes out to find out and when he returns he says, perhaps they’ll extend it, perhaps not.

The defense rejects the agreement and poses some questions:

Q: The detainee was arrested on 30.9.12. Has he given a statement to the police? A: Yes.

Q: When was the last statement given? A: 10.10.12.

Q: Has he added details since then? A: This is confidential.

Q: Is the second version different from the first? A: I’m not at liberty to answer.

Q: How many times since then has he been interrogated?  A: Several times. About 15 frontal interrogations.

Q: How many hours? A: from 8 PM to 7 AM.

As for breaks in the interrogation, the answer is: several breaks.

The defense seeks clarification: You mean that he was sleep deprived?

The investigator insists that all the interrogations were conducted properly and legally.

At another time the detainee was interrogated from 5 AM until 19:30. And there were breaks.

The question of sleep deprivation bothers the defense. He asks to present his summation after the judge interrogates the detainee, but the judge is reluctant to waste so much of the court’s precious time and asks to give the closing remarks at this stage, before interrogating the detainee.

The defense again asks the judge to question the detainee about the night interrogations and how he felt about it.

At this point we left the court and we did not come back to hear the judge’s decision.

Translation: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound

Judge: Shmuel Fleischman

Police investigator: Afif Mahmoud

Defence attorney: Judd Kadmani

There were 4 cases in the docket.

The defence attorney arrived in court without a tie. The judge sent him to bring a tie, and while waiting examined the cases in the docket.

Judge Fleischman inquired of the investigator why he was seeking extension of remand in cases whose completion is near.

The investigator claimed that extensions were necessary to complete the investigations. The judge did not accept his position, and said he would not agree to more than 4 days to complete the investigation and to transfer it to the prosecution.

And so when the attorney returned from his search for a tie, there was no problem regarding an agreement between the parties: they agreed without a hearing.

All in all, we did not know how many days the police had asked for, and what the charges were (except in one case, where the charges were “membership in Islamic Jihad”, recruiting members, participating in processions of masked people, where the suspect was holding knives and throwing stones).

In the final case heard - of Khaled Ahmed Kader Kuad - ID 851619874  - Justice Fleischmann refused to accept the agreement the parties had reached: 7 more days of investigation.

Judge Fleischman argued energetically that the suspect had already been detained for one month, and that not much progress was expected in the investigation, and that there was no reason whatsoever that he - the judge - should serve as a rubber stamp for the investigation agencies. He refused to extend Kuad's detention by more than one day - and thus he decided and wrote in the minutes. By the following day in the afternoon, the case and the detainee must reach the Military Court in Ofer.

The cases in which four more days were granted for investigations:

Abed al-Rahman Issa Mohammed Abu Zagarit, ID 851902387

Kuotiba Musa Salem Ka’abna, ID 852190008

Ahmad Faisal Mohammed Amaeli, ID 850122821

All the detainees were, at some stage during their arrest, barred from meeting with an attorney. 

Translation: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound

Judge: Jordan Barak

Police investigator: Avi Akiva

Attorneys: Firas Sabah, Judd Kadmani

There was no list of the hearings today.

3 cases were submitted to the worthy judge. One concerned a detainee barred from meeting an attorney.

The first case was that of the barred detainee, represented by Attorney Firas.

We were present at this part of the hearing. At the end of the presentation of the defence attorney's questions, we asked the judge to consider the preliminary injunction of the Supreme Court recommending that our presence be allowed  in all parts of the hearing (i.e., the debate between the parties - the police representative and the defence attorney, and also the hearing when the detainee appears without his attorney).

Justice Jordan Barak read the document and remarked that he was aware of this recommendation.

But before the judge decided, the investigator had two requests: to hold the hearing in camera and thus avoid, for "security reasons", publicising the detainee's name (since today there were no lists), and in addition, not to publish the minutes that we took.

Judge Jordan Barak tended to agree with our presence, but acceded to the police investigator’s request.

The second casewas represented by Attorney. Judd Kadmani

The suspect was arrested on 16.5.12.

The police investigator sought another 15 days for additional investigation: this was the first extension of remand.

The suspicion:  "serious offences". The suspect gave his first police statement today.

The defence attorney asked what the detainee is suspected of.

Answer: Conspiring and activities in an organization.

Question: What organization?

Answer: I cannot give details.

Question: Does he link himself to the organization?

Answer:  He has linked himself.

Some more questions were answered laconically - "I cannot provide details".

Summary: The defence attorney explained that the detainee admits having written  to friends in an online chat about his plans, and that the accusation is based on this. But he only wrote it as a joke, he maintained.

The judge commented that on such an important issue, there is no place for jokes.

Decision: Justice Barak concluded, and among others, wrote that there is evidence for the charges against the detainee, and a further investigation is justified. But for the sake of judicial oversight, he is granting 11 more days for the investigation - not the 15 which the police sought.

Third case:Represented by Attorney Firas Sabah.

The suspect was arrested on 6.5.12.

The police asked for 8 more days.

The defence attorney had no questions and summed up immediately: the detainee should be released. He is charged with an offence that today is indeed punishable, but when it was performed, membership in Hamas was not prohibited.

However, according to the confidential report there are new suspicions, and therefore the judge is granting an extension of remand. 

Translation: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound

Judge: Major Menachem Lieberman

Police Investigator: Omri Aweidah

Defence Attorneys: Firas Sabah, Kadmani Jadd

Two cases in the docket, one of whom is barred (from meeting with a lawyer)

Rajib Musa Salah Salah al-Din ID 945086064

The police requested a 15-day extension of remand for further investigation.

The man was arrested four days ago on suspicion that he planned and started to carry out 'highly dangerous operations'.

According to the judge, the detainee is cooperating with the investigators, and has admitted some of the allegations against him.

The defence attorney did not object to extending the remand interrogation, but the number of days sought by the police seemed excessive to him.

Justice Lieberman noted that he had read the confidential report, but "did not find a reason to extend for the period requested; the investigative team can interrogate during a shorter period".

He granted a 12-day extension.

Osama Khamis Shehadeh Masalmeh ID 921718177

Barred from meeting with his lawyer until 13.12.

The hearing was conducted in the presence of  the Attorney, while the detainee was not present.

The police asked to extend the investigation period by another 15 days.

The suspicion against the detainee: activity and membership in Hamas.

Most of Defence Attorney Firas's questions were answered by: "it’s in the classified report".

The defence summed up: this is the first extension, the respondent was questioned by the army and the police. He has admitted to part of the charges.

He asked the court not to accede to the request of the police for another 15 days.

When Investigator Aweidah saw that we asked to remain in the courtroom [while the barred detainee appeared], he immediately requested to conduct the hearing “in camera”, so as to prevent us of attending.

Judge Lieberman met Aweidah half-way: he told us he had consulted with colleagues, and that they had convinced him that his previous position (to allow us to stay in court as a sort of civilian unit in the detainee's interrogation) was not correct: he admitted he was wrong to let us hear the questioning of the barred detainee …