Ofer - Release on Bail, Separation Barrier
Translation: Marganit W.
Prosecutor: Captain Jenia Wellinsky
Attorneys Gaby Lasky and Neri Ramati appeal before Justice Lieut.-Col. Zvi Lekakh an earlier decision by Major Amir Dahan not to hold another hearing in the request for release until the trial by the appellant, Adeeb Abu-Rahme, of Bil'in. He is accused of disturbing the peace, sedition, incitement to throw rocks and entering a restricted area (all connected to demonstrations against the separation wall. You have to be deaf, blind and illiterate not to see the chutzpah, violence and obtuseness in this "Newspeak" statement).
The defense argues that new circumstances have come to light that justify releasing the detainee until his trial:
A. Two of the co-defendants have already been released, one is Muhammad Hatib who, the defense proved, was in Canada at the time of the incident.
The other, Muhammad Abu Rahme was accused only of membership in the Committee Against the Fence.
He was released (only until his trial, though) because he himself committed no incitement, only the Committee did.
B. The man who incriminated him in charges of incitements etc. is the one who also "identified" in a video Muhammed Hatib, who was in Canada at the time. He was wrong about one man, he could certainly be wrong about another.
C. Because of the lapse of time, the danger Adeeb poses has diminished; the trial may drag for a long time, and he may end up spending more time in jail than the sentence stipulates. Members who have read our publication GUILTY will know that in similar cases, judges in military courts tend to hand down sentences that "coincide with days spent in jail," thus solving the problem.
D. The Committee Against the Fence advocates only the use of non-violent means and opposes even throwing rocks.
In his decision the judge rejected these claims saying that there is a difference between the released detainees and the appellant: there is a video clip that shows his violent behavior.
The lapse of time is no reason for release.
(Thus, the state violates the rights of people who act in compliance with the Supreme Court
decision that stated that the route of the separation wall in Bil'in is unjust and should be removed. This is how the state defends the army that breaks the law).