Russian Compound, Jerusalem - Remand Extension, Barred (from meeting with attorney)

Observers: 
Yehudit Keshet, Tova Szeintuch (reporting)
Nov-17-2008
|
Morning

Translation: L.W.

Russian Compound

 

Judge: Adrian Agassi

Police investigator: Itzik Yakobov

Defence Attorneys: Fahmi Shakirat, Maamoun Hashin, Firas, Salah Hazam

 

9 files were discussed, 5 of them barred from meeting a lawyer.

 

All the files of barred detaineesinfo-icon were submitted together, and there was no opposition to our presence during presentation of defence questions.

There was confusion in bringing in the detainees. At first the wrong ones were brought in. Renovations are underway in the detention centre, and the corridor that usually serves the detainees (and us) as a waiting area is under construction, making the bringing of detainees very complicated. When we came out of the room, we saw a detainee with eyes blindfolded waiting behind the door.

 

The first remand hearing began with the prosecutor contending that the detainee was arrested on 16 November, while the detainee argued that his arrest was November 14. The judge asked the prosecutor to clarify the point. The detainee was removed from the courtroom, and the prosecutor sent for more precise information.

 

In the next two files, the judge informed the detainees that there was agreement to the extended remand for preparation of the file and its transfer to the Military Prosecutor at Ofer.

 

The following three (barred detainees) were Advocate Shakirat’s files.

The questions were well known, and the responses were anticipated: the material is classified. In one of the files, Shakirat inquired whether the prosecution required all the requested time. Itzik responded: “Hard to answer. We are not speaking of precise data, but it seems that the time is needed.”

 

Salah Hazam’s file was also of a barred detainee. The attorney wanted to know whether the detainee’s arrest was a military initiative, or whether he reported on his own initiative to the police station in Atarot (as summoned). The response: “I don’t know and it does not arise from the documents. The judge wondered: “That means the arrest warrant does not stipulate how the arrest was to be made?!” “No, it is not written,” the police prosecutor answered.

 

The charge in all the barred cases today was “activity in Hamas.”

The first detainee, for whom there was lack of clarity about the date of arrest, was brought in again, and it aspired that he was correct – not the file. There was also a discrepancy between the written file and the contention of the detainee: the prosecutor argued that the detainee was interrogated during the period of his arrest, while the detainee claimed he was not questioned.

 

The judge announced that he would give his decision on remand extension at a later date.