Russian Compound, Jerusalem - Remand Extension, Health Problems
Translation: Marganit W.
Judge: Menahem Lieberman
Police Investigator: Shanan Muhammad
Defense: Attys. Firas Sabah, Amar Yassin, Judd Kadmani
There are 4 cases in the docket: one detainee is barred from seeing counsel; one detainee is absent for medical reasons.
Assem Abd Al Kader Ibrahim Hajaz – ID 946048675
He is defended by all three lawyers. Atty. Yassin presents the case.
The investigator requests 15 additional days for the investigation.
This is the third remand extension.
The charge: Activity endangering security in the region.
From the defense’s questions we gather that this is a continuing investigation and more interrogations are scheduled.
The investigator claims that the results of the investigation substantiate the charges against the detainee. He has linked himself to the incident, but from the defense’s questions we gather that it is not clear that the suspect has been confronted with the accusations.
The defense claims that some of the testimonies are not admissable (as a result of polygraph test).
Defense Summation: The respondent has been in jail for a long time. The court is requested to re-examine the remand request, and to provide evidence to support that request.
Justice Lieberman’s summation:
The judge examined the material, considered the defense’s argument regarding the polygraph and shortened the remand to 11 days.
Mahmoud Nessim Jussef Gamhor – ID 401381447
He is represented by Amar Yassin.
The police investigator requests 8 additional days to complete the investigation.
The charge: activity endangering security in the region and attempted murder: he stabbed a soldier on Rte. 443. The investigator claims that those are serious allegations and that a detailed investigation plan has been presented to the judge.
The detainee is about 20 years old; his hand is bandaged and he claims he can’t move his fingers. He was shot during the stabbing incident.
Q: Did the incident take place inside the Checkpoint? A: Yes.
Q: Was it recorded by the cameras? A: the films have not been developed yet.
Q: Has any of the investigators seen the cameras? A: I can’t say.
Q: Have the soldiers involved been interrogated? A: Yes.
Q: Has the respondent given a statement to the police? He claims there was an altercation with the soldiers, and when one of them tried to hit him, he reacted. Has his version been checked? A: He gave a statement, which states the opposite.
Q: Apart from the incident itself, does the investigation yield anything proving that he intended to stab? A: It’s in the confidential file.
Q: Does the investigation try to expose the respondent’s motives or what actually happened? A: I can’t answer.
Q: Has the investigation of the incident concluded? A: No.
Atty. Yassin’s Summation:
In spite of the severity of the incident, the sequence of events should be clear to the investigators because the security cameras recorded the incident – all you have to do is watch them. The respondent does not deny that he stabbed a soldier at the checkpoint, but he blames it on the altercation with the soldiers. Everything is recorded; there is no need to explore other avenues.
Justice Lieberman’s summation:
The detainee was arrested 2 days ago after having stabbed a soldier. There is ground for detention. Remand extension for 6 days.
The relevant agencies should see to it that the detainee receives medical attention.
Judd Kaid Mahmoud Saar – ID 900108101- Born in 1964
He is barred from seeing counsel.
A 15-day remand extension is requested.
Charges: military activity.
We attended only the part when the attorney argued.
He said the detainee has been in custody since 9.8.15 and this is the second remand.
The detainee linked himself to the incident. Most questions were answered with reference to the confidential file, but we learned that the evidence supports the allegations.
We left the court with the attorneys as the detainee was ushered in for questioning by the court.
Raed Muhammad Ibrahim Baduan - ID 917595688- Born in 1964
The detainee was not present in court. He was injured and was in hospital. He was shot in the chest when his car turned over as he was trying to run over three soldiers, according to the investigators.
The investigator requests 12 day remand extension.
The charges are attempted murder and endangering security in the region.
Q: Is it true that the respondent has not been interrogated since his arrest? A: He was interrogated. Face to face.
Q: When? A: On August 12 and 13.
Q; When was the incident? A: 6.8.
Q: Does he admit he tried to run them over? A: This is a preliminary interrogation. He linked himself to the incident.
The defense is trying to establish two things: Was the detainee’s vehicle examined to determine if it was in good condition (The judge seems to resent these questions).
Today, ten days after the vehicle was checked, there is still no report about its condition. There are no results of the examination of the scene either.
The second issue the defense raises is: Was the soldier who shot the detainee questioned and was it under warning?
No, says the investigator. The soldier who shot the detainee was not deposed.
In summation Atty. Yassin says that not submitting a report on the vehicle is a serious omission by the investigators. So is the failure to depose the shooting soldier.
The defense points out that what is described as a terrorist attack may be a car accident, which can be verified by an examination of the car.
Justice Lieberman refuses even to consider such a possibility.
Justice Lieberman’s summation: The judge, too, is surprised that there are no results of the examination of the scene [objects found there] and of the car.
Remand extension by 4 days.