Israel: Military Courts Updates 1& 2

Defence for Children/ Palestine Section issued regular updates on developments in the Israeli military courts arising out of the agreement reached by Palestinian organisations and lawyers on 17 April 2008 to challenge the military court system. As part of this agreement, lawyers representing Palestinians, including children, in the military courts will:

• No longer accept plea bargains offered by the Israeli military prosecution;
• Appeal all orders extending the period of pre-trial detention; and
• Challenge all measures restricting a detainees’ right to meet with a lawyer.

Under the agreement, no lawyer appearing for detainees in the Israeli military courts is authorized to negotiate a plea bargain with the prosecution. Any offers made by the prosecution will be communicated to a committee of lawyers who will be responsible for deciding on the appropriate response.

In anticipation of swift Israeli retaliation in response to this agreement, DCI/PS is seeking to keep the international community and media outlets regularly updated on the situation in the military courts in the hope that pressure might be brought to bear on Israel to cease using the harsh, irregular and unjust practices currently existing in the “courts”.
Update 1
There are currently two Israeli military courts in operation in the West Bank:

• The Military Court of Samaria – which operates in an Israeli military base near the village of Salem in the north of the West Bank; and
• The Military Court of Judea – which operates in the Israeli military base of Ofer, near Ramallah.

Positives

1. On Thursday, 24 April 2008, lawyers lodged appeals in all 36 cases heard in the Offer Military Court that day, in cases involving both adults and children. Prior to 17 April, typically only one appeal at most would have been lodged.

2. Lawyers in the Salem Military Court have observed that the decision to challenge decisions in the military courts is slowing proceedings down. In order to keep the process going, some judges are making slightly more favourable procedural decisions than they did prior to 17 April.

3. The decision to resist the orders extending detention pending the completion of the trial process means that next Thursday there will be 170 such extension of detention hearings, up from about 30-40 prior to 17 April. 

Negatives

1. In Ofer Military Court prior to 17 April, the defence lawyers were given the client’s file to look at on request. Since 17 April, defence lawyers are now only given the file once their client is brought before the judge. In effect this only gives the defence lawyer around one minute to review the contents of the file.

2. Prior to 17 April, any lawyer wishing to appeal a decision of the military courts would fax a copy of the notice of appeal to the military appeals court, situated at Ofer. Another lawyer could then attend the military court of appeal and fix a date with the court for the hearing of the appeal. Since 17 April, the head of the military court of appeal is only permitting the lawyer who submitted the appeal to come to the court to select the date for the appeal. This new policy creates a practical hardship for the lawyers as in most cases they will need to set aside a whole day to travel to Ofer for the two minutes it takes to select a date for the appeal. Most lawyers will loose a whole day’s work as a result of this policy.

3. Since 17 April the prosecution at the Salem Military Court has refused to honour agreements reached with defence lawyers prior to 17 April. Around 10 to 15 cases are affected.

4. Prior to 17 April, when a case came before the Salem Military Court for the first time, the lawyers would agree to adjourn proceedings for one or two months so that negotiations between the defence and prosecution could take place. Since 17 April, defence lawyers are refusing to negotiate and are entering pleas of “not guilty” at the first court appearance. The judges have refused to record a plea of “not guilty” and have adjourned the proceedings for two months. This has the effect of arbitrarily delaying the whole process for two months with the aim of putting additional pressure on the defence.

Update 2
Covers developments in the Military Courts on 27 April, 2008.

1. On Thursday, 24 April lawyers lodged appeals in all 36 cases heard in the Ofer Military Court that day, in cases involving both adults and children. Prior to 17 April, typically only one appeal would have been lodged.

2. On Sunday, 27 April the head of the Military Appeals Court declared that the Court would hear all 36 appeals together at 5.00 pm in the absence of the detainees.

3. Defence lawyers immediately filed a petition to the Israeli High Court challenging this decision of the head of the Military Appeals Court. The High Court requested that the head of the Military Appeals Court provide an explanation for the decision by 1.00 pm on 27 April. This time limit was later extended to 3.00 pm. At 3.00 pm the head of the Military Appeals Court explained to the High Court that there were insufficient courts and judges to deal with the number of appeals that had been lodged. The High Court adjourned proceedings to give both sides time to resolve their differences, failing which the Court would decide.

4. The Committee of defence lawyers have taken the view that the lack of capacity of the Military Appeals Court to deal with the number of appeals is not their problem, but the problem of the system.

5. The head of the Military Appeals Court has now agreed to hear the appeal cases separately and in the presence of the detainees. The appeal cases still pending will be heard on Tuesday, 29 April 2008. 

1. On Thursday, 24 April lawyers lodged appeals in all 36 cases heard in the Ofer Military Court that day, in cases involving both adults and children. Prior to 17 April, typically only one appeal would have been lodged.

2. On Sunday, 27 April the head of the Military Appeals Court declared that the Court would hear all 36 appeals together at 5.00 pm in the absence of the detainees.

3. Defence lawyers immediately filed a petition to the Israeli High Court challenging this decision of the head of the Military Appeals Court. The High Court requested that the head of the Military Appeals Court provide an explanation for the decision by 1.00 pm on 27 April. This time limit was later extended to 3.00 pm. At 3.00 pm the head of the Military Appeals Court explained to the High Court that there were insufficient courts and judges to deal with the number of appeals that had been lodged. The High Court adjourned proceedings to give both sides time to resolve their differences, failing which the Court would decide.

4. The Committee of defence lawyers have taken the view that the lack of capacity of the Military Appeals Court to deal with the number of appeals is not their problem, but the problem of the system.

5. The head of the Military Appeals Court has now agreed to hear the appeal cases separately and in the presence of the detainees. The appeal cases still pending will be heard on Tuesday, 29 April 2008.