Ofer - Holding and trading of combat materiel, Remand Extension

Observers: 
Nitza Aminov (reporting)
09/09/2013
|
Morning

 

Translation: Marganit W.

 

Judge: Captain Noam Briman

Prosecutor: Captain Asher Silver

Defense: Atty. Ahlam Haddad

 

Defendant: Taer Amad Taleb Amru, ID 852923465 - Case 4728/13

Hearing: remand extension until conclusion of the proceedings.

 

Taer Amru is accused of throwing an incendiary object. The indictment is based on testimony by Witness No. 2 who claims that Taer called him to tell him that he was going to throw stun grenades at soldiers entering the village. The prosecution also cited Witness No. 3 who corroborates the charge, implying that a unit had been formed with military objectives.

Countering the prosecution’s peremptory claims, Atty. Haddad pointed out questionable aspects of the indictment.

Witness 2 talked about a number of local students who were throwing stun grenades, mentioning four of them. It is not clear if he was with them, near them, or where the grenades were thrown.

The defense stressed that all the testimonies are hearsays – Witness 2 said that Taer’s brother had told him that some grenades contained chlorine, others mercury and some used fireworks. Witness 3, too, said he was reporting what he had heard.

Moreover, the defendant is a third year law student and at the time of the incident was not even in the area. There were no classes during Ramadan, so he worked in a cab company. The defense presened a document from the cab company attesting that the defendant worked there from 9.7.13 until 28.8.13.

 

The judge’s decision (from the protocol):

“I read and examined the testimonies in the file. Even though I noted some holes and some potential difficulties in the testimonies that may impinge on the conviction, at this stage I do not think that detention is unwarranted….”

The judge orders remand extension until the conclusion of the investigation.

Arraignment hearing is set for 8.10.13

 

In the large, empty Appeals Court I saw two reporters of the army weekly “Bamahane” who had come to write a story about the military courts. They caled to me when I passed by, because they were told that an interesting hearing was about to take place. They had the indictment in their hands. The interpreter, too, importuned us to wait because the hearing would be a “double appeal” by both defense and prosecution.

In view of such a promise, I decided to wait. But I reaped only disappointment.

 

Judges: Colonel Natanel Benishou

             Colonel Hanoch Kenan

             Colonel Itzik Mina

Defense: Atty. Tarek Bargout

 

Ayman Said Muhammad Hamida – ID 904614062

Ayman Hamida was arrested on 11.11.09. According to the indictment he was an active member of an unlawful organization, which constituted a military unit.

The charges include many items relating to purchase of arms, shooting, hoarding weapons, trading in combat materiel etc. etc.

I searched the Internet and found information about Ayman Hamida; I read a long protocol of a hearing at the HCJ, presented by his attorneys, Tarek Bargout and Labib Habib in 2011 (Cf. the website of “Center for Individual Rights”).

The HCJ did not revoke the prosecution’s charges against Hamida, but it accepted his claim that he had been tortured and consequently confessed.

 

The appeal hearing was supposed to begin at 10:00. At 11:30 Atty. Bargout walked in.

He apologized for the delay, but the judges were adamant: they imposed a 1500 shekel fine on the attorney and set the next hearing for 1.10.12 at 13:30.