Russian Compound, Jerusalem - Danger to Regional Security, Remand Extension

Observers: 
Roni Hammerman, Tova Szeintuch (reporting)
30/05/2011
|
Morning

Translation: Marganit W.

Russian  Compound

Judge: Shmuel Fleischmann

Police Investigator: Bashir Amar

Defense: Leah Tzemel, Maamoun Hashim, Iyad Misk

 

There are 3 cases in the docket. All the detaineesinfo-icon are barred from meeting with an attorney.

We were given to understand that the three cases were based on mutual incriminations.

 

Faras Nasser Subati Bargouti – ID No. 90401061, represented by Atty. Maamoun Hashim.

Raed Samir Habib Halabi, ID No. 039528419, represented by Atty. Iyad Misak

Nasser Adin Subati Isa Abu Hadir – ID No. 080010424, represented by Atty. Leah Tzemel.

 

We attended part of the discussion between Abu Hadir’s attorney and the police investigator.

The investigator requested remand extension for 15 days to complete the investigation.

Atty. Leah Tzemel explained the status and the position of the detainee: he was arrested on 15.4.11 and was kept in detention for about a month. On 13.5.11 his status was changed to administrative detention. Right before his release from administrative detention he was taken to the Russian Compound for interrogation under pretext of a security violation – membership in the Popular Front [for the Liberation of Palestine] and activity against the security of the state.

The defense wanted to know if the interrogator is familiar with the case and knows why the defendant is in detention. She received the standard answer: “It is all included in the secret file”. Unsatisfied with this reply Atty. Tzemel pressed the interrogator to say “Yes or No or I cannot answer”.

Leah Tzemel: You agree that not everything in the secret file is secret. It is no secret why he was interrogated. I represented him. I intend to show that the investigator was not truthful… I wish to expose the clause….

The investigator continued to refer to the “secret file”. The defense appealed to the judge: the investigator is under cross-examination and is obliged to answer, unless he can prove that his answer will damage the investigation. The judge, however, thought otherwise: he sided with the investigator, adding to the protocol phrases that, according to the defense, were not said by the investigator.

Atty. Tzemel tried to show that the police investigator is not familiar with the defendant’s previous investigation. For example, he does not know that the suspect was tested by polygraph and was found to be telling the truth when he said that he did not participate in military activity with others.

Another aspect that came up in the cross-examination was the interrogators’ authority: what authority does a police interrogator from Judea-Samaria have over a Jerusalem resident who lives in Jerusalem?

The answer is: there is an arrest order, which provides legal authorization for an interrogation of a suspect when the violations are believed to have been committed in Jerusalem.

At one point the judge asked the investigator to elaborate, but to no avail.

Atty. Tzemel stated that the GSS has no basis for the charges, so the case is trumped up.

She asked the investigator if it is possible that the case is made up. A shocked investigator immediately responded: The GSS is a principled and conscientious organization: it does not engage in such behavior.

In summation, the defense reiterated its doubt about AUTHORITY, which is a basic question in this case. She claimed that a military court has no authority to detain and interrogate her client based on rules that apply to residents of the Territories. Even the GSS legal counsel cannot claim otherwise.

Another fault she found in the case: Since the GSS realizes that remand extension is hard to obtain, it based its charges on incriminations tied to other violations, and it is not clear if any of the incriminators was set on…

Leah Tzemel moved to declare that the court has no authority in this case. If this is denied, she requests a limited number of hours or days for the investigation.

Judge’s decision: Having heard the suspect and the defense, and having examined the evidence in the file, he accepts the investigator’s request of 15 days remand extension.