Russian Compound, Jerusalem - Remand Extension, Barred (from meeting with attorney)
Translation: Diana Rubanenko
Judge: Maj. Koby Sudari
Police investigator: Omri Awwida
Defence attorneys: Maamoun Hashim, Firas Sabbah, Abu Ahmed, Naji Amar
There were 7 cases in the docket, one of which is barred from meeting an attorney.
One (a resident of A-Ram, with Israeli residency rights) is accused of a dispute with his neighbours, and two of stealing a car.
The proceedings were conducted very quickly, and the judge criticized the system.
Islam Saleh Muhahmmad Bader
The parties reached agreement (we were not present during the proceedings).
Ismail Mahmoud Ismail Awad, ID 852558576
He was represented by Mamoun Hashim and Abu Ahmad.
The parties agreed to add another nine days investigation. If another extension is required, the military prosecution will request one.
Muhammad Salah Mahmoud Bader, ID 852478940
Defence attorney: Maamoun Hashim
The police investigator requested another 8 days. The judge, who had read the file, did not understand why another extension was sought. More days for the investigation had already been granted – until Thursday, 26.1.12 – why was another extension being sought today?!
The judge suggested that the investigators rethink matters, and ask the GSS to inform the defence attorneys about the procedure, in the appropriate manner, not on a ‘tsetaleh” (a note).
Diaa Hatam Toufik Kashua, ID 852588276
The defence attorney, Ahlam Haddad, was not present in the court, and Maamoun Hashim thought that the detainee was not represented; he offered his help, but it turned out that there was no need.
The suspect was arrested on 18.1.12.
The judge again made a point of reading the reports in the file. He understood from them that the detainee had been in court the previous day (Sunday) at Ofer, in the presence of the defence attorney and that she had requested he be released. At that time, it was agreed that Kashua’s case would be heard the next day (24.1.12) at Ofer, and his attorney was informed accordingly.
This was unclear to the judge, and he asked the investigator to explain – the latter maintained that it was complicated to take the detainee on Tuesday to Ofer; they had tried without success to contact Attorney Haddad, and so they moved the proceedings to today, a date more suitable for the investigation schedule.
Justice Sudari did not agree to changes that Attorney Haddad was not informed about. He rejected the request, and held that the session would take place the following day, in the presence of Kashua’s attorney.
Musaeb Ibrahim Issa Sa’id, ID 852396266
Defence Attorney: Firas Sabbah
The police investigator requested another 15 days.
Firas argued that the detainee had been incriminated, but the researchers had not bothered to find out if the incriminated person was the man in court, because no attempts for identification had been made. The familiar reply was given to every question from the defence attorney – it’s all in the confidential report.
The judge’s decision: the detainee was taken into custody on 16.1.12. Taking into account the material in the confidential reports, there were grounds for the charges. Remand was extended by 11 days.
Hamdan Abed al Juad Deeb Dar Salah, ID 980742472
Defence Attorney: Firas Sabbah
This is Salah’s fourth remand extension. He was arrested on 29.12.11.
The police investigator asked for another 11 days.
The suspect admitted some of the suspicions against him. The defence attorney saw no reason to continue investigating him, following his admission.
After reading the file, the judge granted an 8-day extension.
Muhammed Rabach Shukri A’assi, ID 999838492
The detainee is barred from meeting with an attorney until 23.1.12.
Defence Attorney: Maamoun Hashim
The detainee is suspected of activity against regional security and of providing assistance to an illegal organization (Islamic Jihad).
He has not yet given a police statement.
Maamoun Hashim received only a minimum of information (from the investigator): the detainee has a security record - from 2005-2007. Most of the questions were answered, predictably, with the same reply – it’s in the confidential report.
The defence attorney left the court, the investigator asked us to leave as well. Roni showed the judge the preliminary injunction document recommending that we remain present [to uphold the principle of public hearing]. The judge read the document and asked the investigator what was his position. The investigator said that he wanted an in camera hearing. The judge asked for the grounds for his position. His grounds were very feeble, and the judge did not accept them. The investigator immediately tried to phone the GSS, and requested an interval so that the GSS agent conducting the investigation would explain the need for an in camera hearing to the judge.
The judge did not agree and said that the hearing must continue. The detainee was brought in, and the judge asked that the court records note the place where we were sitting, at a distance from the detainee, which ruled out any contact between us (!)
The detainee identified himself, and the judge explained to him what happened in the first part of the proceeding in his case when his attorney was in court, what was discussed, and asked him whether he had anything to say. No, he had nothing to say. The session was closed.
The judge’s decision: to extend the remand by another 11 days.