Cross-examination by the defense
Q: Are you authorized to investigate youth?
Witness: I am a police investigator and when necessary also a youth investigator.
Q: Do you have any training to investigate youth? Yes or no?
Witness: I am an investigator at the station and when necessary I also interrogate youth according to the instructions of the head of the investigation office or the youth investigation officer at the station. I am not an authorized youth investigator.
Q: At the Ma'ale Adumim station which law do you go by to investigate youth?
Witness: Like in all of the Israel Police, the Youth Law.
Q: Are you aware that there is a Youth Investigation Law in Israel?
Witness: Yes, I am aware.
Q: According to that law, until what time are you allowed to investigate youth?
Witness: If you are referring to the time the boys were interrogated, their interrogation was approved by the station's youth investigation officer and under his direction.
Q: But according to the law, until what time are you allowed to interrogate youth? Do you as an investigator know until what time?
Witness: I know a lot of things, I know about the Youth Law and the Drug Order Law and there are a lot of laws I understand.
Q: According to the Youth Law, until what time are you allowed to interrogate?
Witness: Until the age of 14, 8 PM, until the age of 16, 10 PM, and age 18 I think all night, I am not sure. But with the approval of the investigations officer you are allowed to investigate all night as needed.
Q: According to the Youth Law, until what time were you allowed to investigate them?
Witness: If you're referring to the interrogation of these boys, it was done under the direction of the investigations officer who directed me to interrogate them at the time that we interrogated them.
Q: You did not warn him or even tell him what he was accused of and that emerges from the documentation.
Witness: Maybe there is a technical defect but I told him his rights for sure.
Q: The whole interrogation is documented. You can see it from beginning to end. You did not warn him, plain and simple.
Witness: The suspect was warned and told his rights. To the contrary, his father was present and I filmed it and even his father understood the option of consulting a lawyer, which was actually stressed to the father. The warning in the investigation is standard procedure.
Q: And I'm telling you, I watched this disk and I did not hear any warning. You just sat him right down and started to question him.
Witness: It could be that the matter of the warning was not documented.
Q: Do you think it is not important?
Witness: I stressed to you that consulting is the interrogee' right and it is my duty to stress it to him and it is important.
Q: What if I tell you that the consultation with the interrogee's father is also recorded and you did not allow it, right away. You told the defendant's father that he was ruining the interrogation and you kicked him out of the room. Do you remember that?
Witness: The consultation of the minor with his father was done the way I am required to do it. The way I was instructed to do it, the way it needs to be done and that is the minor's right. However, it is a consultation and there are cases when minors' parents, instead of consulting disrupt the interrogation and in those cases we see no point in the consultation so we ask the parents to get out of the interrogation room so that they don't disrupt our interrogation. I do not remember kicking the minor's father out of the investigation room but if it appears then maybe he acted not in the way I explained to him and that is why maybe he went out, if it is documented as you say.
Q: According to the law is it consultation with parents or the presence of parents?
Witness: The youth officer who instructed me how to investigate instructed me to allow consultation without presence [of parents] in the investigation and that is what I did.
Q: Is that permissible by law? Do you work by the law or by the instructions of the officers?
Witness: I work both by the law and by the instructions of the officers who are my commanders.
Q: Let's go back to M.A. Where is his visual documentation?
Witness: Like in the case of Y.A., M.A.'s interrogation was also documented. The interrogation was burned on a disk, we are human beings, I don't know what the source of the mishap is, I understand the disk does not exist. The interrogation is saved for only 30 hours so we could not reconstruct it.
Q: According to the clocks here I see that as soon as you finished with Y. you began with M.A. Right?
Witness: I finished at 4:00 and started at 4:30.
Q: Did you warn M.A. before his testimony?
Witness: Yes.
Q: Did you warn him in the Arabic language?
Witness: In his language, in the Arabic language when his brother was present in the investigation room and it happened before the beginning of the interrogation. And he was given the possibility to consult with his brother and the right to a defense lawyer was explained to his brother.
Q: Could you repeat the warning in the Arabic language to the court?
Witness: Yes.
Q: I want to hear how you say it in Arabic.
Witness: the policeman says in Arabic: "The suspicion against you is such and such, everything you say will be written in your investigation file. You may consult a lawyer and you may also remain silent and not speak, Everything you say may be used against you in court."
Q: Were you present at the meeting between M.A. and his brother B.?
Witness: As far as I can remember, yes.
Q: Do you remember what they talked about?
Witness: No. I don't interfere in consultations.
Q: M.A. said here in court "I cried, I was scared, I asked them to let me talk to my brother and they didn't let me." Is he lying?
Witness: Yes. To the Court's question, I don't remember him crying but it was clear that he was upset, it is no fun to be arrested at night, soldiers come and it is no fun. He was upset. If there is a problem in certain cases, if I see an emotional suspect, I offer him a glass of water, a hot drink, if he's hungry or thirsty. Even though he's an interrogee he is still a human being. I don't remember him crying, I am very careful with children, a police interrogation is a trauma for life.
Q: Why do you think it was necessary to interrogate a child at 4:30 AM?
Witness: As I said, the method of arresting suspects, including minors, in the Arab villages, is done at night for security considerations, to avoid clashes. If it were in Israel the conditions would have been different and I suppose the investigation would be in the morning.
Q: I meant the interrogation, not the arrest.
Witness: As soon as the detainee arrived he was interrogated. There is no point to deny his freedom and to violate his freedom.
Appendix D - Synopsis of testimonies
given in the trial of A.C. From Nebbi Salah, aged 16 at the time the alleged offenses were committed, (Case 1367/10)
(our emphasis)
Primary examination of witness’ Moshe Madiuni, police investigator, by military prosecutor Adv. Capt. Michael Avitan
Witness: I worked as an investigator at the SJ district central unit. Altogether I have been police investigator for 26 years. I have all the training. I have also been trained as a youth investigator even though I do not do that every day.
On January 23, 2011 the suspect was brought to us by the army after he had been arrested by the army at around 9 AM. Right after his arrival we began the interrogation. Of course we read the suspect the suspicions against him, we explained to him what the suspicions are, we told him he did not have to say anything if he did not want to, that everything he said could be used as evidence against him and that if he did not answer questions it could strengthen the evidence against him and that he had the right to consult a lawyer.
As far as I understand the suspect understood what we explained to him and said everything he had to say. Everything was said from his own free and good will. The interrogation was documented visually from beginning to end continuously, as we do in many investigations. During the interrogation other people went in and out of the interrogation room, that is normal for us and we even brought in a native speaker to read him the confession word by word, her name is Nihi (witness for the prosecution no. 4), so there would be no doubts about what the confession said.
I want to point out that the suspect signed that he understood the warning and as for the testimony itself he did not sign it, that was after his meeting with the lawyer....
... the investigation was in the Arabic language, I speak spoken Arabic, I understood the suspect well and the suspect understood me and it is documented.
Q: We are now in the stage of the mini-trial arguments and there were allegations about the management of the interrogation, the way the defendant was treated, was there anything exceptional? Describe the atmosphere.
Witness: There was a good atmosphere, the interrogee spoke out of his free will, he cooperated fully and he gave us details that surprised us and we didn't even know... there was a relaxed atmosphere and I don't remember anything exceptional... we do not use violence, of course since we are talking about a pretty young boy we treated him accordingly, extremely gently. We even offered him to eat and drink.
Q: During the investigation it says the suspect cried. He answered that he was afraid to fail his tests in school. Tell us about that specific point.
Witness: I remember he said he had tests. He wanted to know what was going to happen to him at the end of the interrogation. I told him that when the interrogation ended whoever had to decide about him would make the decision. We really didn't know what was going to happen to him in the stage after the interrogation.
Q: What was your impression, how did the defendant look?
Witness: He looked fine, I don't remember anything exceptional... being arrested isn't easy. Besides that I didn't see anything special.
Q: Did he complain before the interrogation about anything that happened in the earlier stage? Did he say what happened to him earlier?
Witness: No.
Q: It said in some of the arguments that the lawyer was in constant contact with the interrogators at the beginning of the interrogation and informed them of his intention to meet the defendant. The interrogators began to interrogate the defendant without consulting a lawyer. What do you have to say about that allegation?
Witness: The lawyer called Arnon and asked whether the suspect had arrived to us, apparently he knew following the arrest, at that stage I think the suspect had not arrived to the interrogations yet but after that his treatment moved to the investigation officer. In any case, when we began the interrogation the lawyer was not present. But we told him he had the right to meet a lawyer. At a later stage I understood that the officer postponed the meeting for later.
Q: At what stage did he actually meet his lawyer?
Witness: The meeting actually occurred, if I am not mistaken, towards the end after they began reading him the testimony. One of the officers came and said that the lawyer arrived.
Q: Another allegation that was raised is that during the defendant's interrogation no parent or relative was present. Why?
Witness: I don't remember any investigation of a boy, resident of the Palestinian Authority, interrogated in the presence of parents. It is an arrest in the middle of the night, they never bring the parents, I can't remember any such thing. I don't make the rules. I have never seen an investigation in which the parents were present. That is the way it is done. And in most of the investigations I did with kids they never wanted to sit with their parents in the interrogation, it is very rare but they are given the right.
Q: It was also alleged that the defendant was not warned and was not told that he had the right to remain silent.
Witness: I said it was explained to him, we did it with extra emphasis because it was a young boy.
Q: It was also alleged that the interrogation was done by three and sometimes even four interrogators. The interrogators threw questions at him alternately and even simultaneously, and there were accusations and shouting and leading questions were asked. What is your response to that?
Witness: The interrogation was conducted in a good atmosphere, it was not an atmosphere of stress, the suspect cooperated and there was no need to exert any pressure. As I said, the interrogation is documented.
Q: So there were three interrogators?
Witness: Alternately, there may have been three at one point. It was not to exert pressure. To the Court's question, usually two people interrogate and sometimes the officer wants to join, another one joined towards the end who read him the testimony, she didn't participate in the actual interrogation... I don't remember shouting in the room, even if there was a shout or something like that it wasn't to exert pressure, there was no goal of extracting information from the suspect by pressure.
Cross-examination by the defense attorney, Gabi Laski
Q: Could you say in general that the suspicions are that the boy threw stones?
Witness: The boy participated in disturbances every Friday, I know that stones are thrown there.
Q: Did you know what time he was arrested?
Witness: I think it was in the middle of the night. Early morning.
Q: Do you know where he was until he came to you?
Witness: As far as I know they take them to a medical examination and by the time he comes to us it takes a while.
Q: So that means that it can be assumed that when he came to you he had been awake early in the morning?
Witness: I don't know whether he slept.
Q: Did you ask whether he slept?
Witness: I may have asked him how he felt, I assume I asked him. Maybe even on the way to bringing him into the room. I might have, but I don't remember, he looked fine to me and awake enough for an investigation, I was not impressed by anything unusual.
Q: Were you in the room as a youth investigator?
Witness: I am authorized to be a youth investigator. Did I put on my youth investigator hat? I suppose so.
Q: As a trained youth investigator, were you also trained about amendment 14 of the Youth Law?
Witness: No, I don't think so, my training was a long time ago.
Q: What kind of behavior did you use as a youth investigator in this investigation? How were you different?
Witness: A kind, fair and very gentle attitude.
Q: Who specifically warned the defendant?
Witness: I think I warned him, I explained to him what he was suspected of, what his rights are... I think I warned him well and he understood. During the interrogation he was also briefed that we talked to the lawyer. He did not ask at any stage to talk to the lawyer.
Q: Did you tell him, you are allowed not to speak in the investigation?
Witness: I told him he did not have to say anything.
Witness: Let's see the recording and I will tell you exactly what happened.
Q: If I tell you that you warned him twice and twice you did not tell him he was allowed to remain silent. In no word and in no way.
Witness: I am willing to see.
The court and the sides watch the tape. The interrogator explains to the defendant that he has the right to consult a lawyer and that everything he says may be used against him. He explain it a number of times and explains the suspicions against him and then he tells the interrogee that he better tell the truth. The interrogee asks whether if he tells the truth he will go home and the interrogator says we shall see, and that will be decided by the officers.
Furthermore, the interrogator tells the interrogee that if he made a mistake he must tell the truth, "everything you had (in Arabic: "lazem") to say." He offered him tea and he said he already had some. He types out the formula of the warning, reads out the interrogee's personal information, explains the names of the interrogators and the suspicions. Everything you say we are going to write down and if you do not answer it could strengthen the evidence. We ask him to write his name and the suspect writes. He asks where he lives.
Q: So you never told him he was allowed to remain silent?
Witness: He understood very well. There was nothing deliberate here and it looks authentic that I explain the suspect his rights and it seems to me he understood very well. Nothing was done deliberately. What was said is what was said, I think he understood he had the right to remain silent...
Q: Did Arnon and you know there was a lawyer?
Witness: In the background we knew there was a lawyer that was supposed to come.
Q: Why didn't you wait with the interrogation?
Witness: I told you, the suspect was brought for interrogation, he is a young boy, it is reasonable that he should be interrogated as soon as possible and I also understood that the lawyer wasn't going to come so fast and besides I was instructed to begin the interrogation I think by Jalal and that is what we did.
Q: When the lawyer arrived and you were in the interrogation who decided not to stop the interrogation and let the lawyer meet the interrogee?
Witness: I think it was the Chief Superintendent who is authorized. He was probably aware of what was going on in the interrogation... I said there were usually two of us interrogators and in this interrogation if I'm not mistaken there were three of us or maybe even four... if you do the statistics, I think most of the time there were two of us. I don't see anything wrong with 10 people being in the room if no pressure is exerted... each one asked when he thought he should ask. That is the dynamic of the interrogation.
Q: A 14-year-old boy throwing stones, three interrogators, five hours? Was there an interrogative necessity?
Witness: Apparently he gave important details.
Q: Including the prevention of the meeting with the lawyer?
Witness: That is not in my authority.
Q: When the defendant burst out crying during the interrogation, do you remember what set that off?
Witness: I think the business about the tests, he was worried about his tests. He was afraid to miss them.
Q: Why did he think about that in the middle of his interrogation?
Witness: It did not come up only once. I don't remember why the crying began.
Q: Is it possible that at different stages of the interrogation he looked very tired and rested his head on the table?
Witness: Possibly towards the end.
Q: Did you as a youth investigator ever think maybe we better stop?
Witness: That is why it is important to begin the investigation fast.
Q: Is it possible maybe to let him sleep first?
Witness: We don't have the conditions of a detention center. And it wasn't clear either what would happen to him at the end of the interrogation and I mean this completely seriously.
Primary examination of witness, Warrant Officer Arnon Yahav, police investigator, by military prosecutor Adv. Capt. Michael Avitan
Witness: I have been an investigator in the SJ district central unit investigation department for five and half years, as an investigator for five and half years and in the police for 10 years... I recognize my signature on the investigation from January 23, 2011.
... the investigation took place in a very positive atmosphere. The suspect cooperated fully... there was nothing exceptional.
Q: There was an allegation during the mini-trial allegation stage that the defendant did not receive notice that his lawyer was on the way and you began the interrogation without allowing him the right to consult a lawyer. What do you have to say about that?
Witness: His lawyer contacted me and told me he was on the way. He asked me whether the suspect, whose name I did not know yet, had arrived yet and I said that he had not arrived yet and that the moment he arrived to us for investigation we would make contact with him... and that is exactly what happened. The defendant came for investigation, I contacted the investigation officer and said to him "please contact the lawyer and inform him" and that is what happened. To the Court's question, I mean the investigations officer Jalal.
Q: It was alleged that the defendant's meeting with the lawyer was prevented by the interrogators and actually when he met his lawyer the interrogation was already over. What is your response to that?
Witness: I received instructions to begin the interrogation and that is what I did.
Q: It was alleged that the defendant was not lawfully warned. What is your response to that?
Witness: He was lawfully warned, it was explained to him, he was asked whether he understood and he answered that he did.
Q: Do you remember that it was explained to him that he had the right to remain silent in the interrogation?
Witness: Yes.
Q: Likewise it was alleged that during the interrogation there were between three and four interrogators. What is your response to that?
Witness: I was with interrogator Moshe Madiuni. Jalal occasionally entered the interrogation and another interrogation officer but most of the interrogation was conducted by Moshe and me.
Q: Were there accusations or shouting at the interrogee?
Witness: No. I want to add that there were parts when we joked with him and laughed with him and it was all done freely.
Q: Was the manner of the interrogation aggressive and humiliating?
Witness: No.
Q: It was alleged that psychological pressure was exerted by the interrogators during the interrogation. What is your response to that?
Witness: There was no psychological pressure. The interrogation was very pleasant and the evidence is that at the end of his interrogation he came over to me and hugged me, and I am not used to that, and I hugged him back.
Q: When he came to the interrogation, what was your impression of his physical and emotional state?
Witness: From the first moment I tried to allay his fears. Not just me, so did the investigator Moshe. We spoke to him respectfully, pleasantly. We explained his rights to him.
Q: It was alleged that before he was brought by the army he was beaten. Did you see any physical signs of that? Did he tell you anything? What was your impression of him when he arrived?
Witness: For his entire interrogation he did not claim that he had been beaten nor did I see any signs on him.
Q: You wrote an investigator's note that the suspect cried, that happened two hours and 45 minutes after the beginning of the interrogation. Tell us why he cried.
Witness: I saw him crying, I asked him why he was crying, I thought maybe it had something to do with our interrogation. Maybe. He told me he was crying because he was afraid he would miss a test. I assume we reassured him about that and that's all.
Q: Did he receive anything during the interrogation? Did he ask for certain things during the interrogation?
Witness: No. He did not ask. We offered him the usual things -- food, drink, we kept offering him -- and if we ate we shared with him. That's all...
Cross-examination
Q: So you speak fluent Arabic? How would you define your level?
Witness: I speak Arabic well.
Q: Were you trained as a youth investigator?
Witness: No. I was trained as an investigator.
Q: Why were you at the interrogation?
Witness: Because I was instructed to be at the interrogation.
Q: Are you aware that a minor is supposed to be interrogated, according to the document, by a youth interrogator?
Witness: Yes, that is what happened.
Q: So you did not interrogate him?
Witness: I interrogated him too.
Q: So how does that square? The order says[SLS1] "shall be interrogated by a youth interrogator too" but "by youth interrogators." How does that square?
Witness: It squares because there was a youth interrogator interrogating him and I was with him.
Q: You just said that you too interrogated him.
Witness: Exactly what I said.
Q: And as far as you're concerned that squares with the order just great.
Witness: It squares with the directive I received, to interrogate him.
Q: How do you say in Arabic "you do not have to say anything"?
Witness: "mish lazem tihki ishi."
Q: And "you have the right to remain silent"?
Witness: What is this, a test in Arabic?... "mrak al-haq tuskut ma tihkish ishi" as long as he understands me.
Q: You wrote in the investigation, it says here that you inform him "you do not have to say anything."
Witness: Yes.
Q: In the video it is not said.
Witness: Can I see that page? So I tell you, it is built-in, in the testimony itself, inside the testimony, in the body of the testimony.
Q: So could you have not warned him?
Witness: As far as I can remember and understand he was warned and it was completely clear to him what he was being interrogated about and it was all done pleasantly.
Q: So I ask you: the warning has a few rights, right? One of them, maybe the main one, is the right to remain silent. I say that you did not tell him that.
Witness: As far as I can remember, the interrogator Moshe warned him and explained it to him. If you are telling me we did not say it than we did not say it.
Q: Is it true that lawyer Goldstein called you?
Witness: Yes.
Q: In the morning, and said he wanted to meet the defendant before the interrogation?
Witness: That is not what he said.
Q: You spoke to him once?
Witness: As far as I can remember he called me in the morning and asked whether the suspect had arrived, I don't remember the name he said, I didn't even know the name of the suspect who was supposed to be interrogated and I told him that he had not arrived yet and that when he arrived I would let him know.
Q: So you are saying you spoke to him once?
Witness: As far as I can remember yes... on the office phone... I don't member what time.
Q: We extracted a printout of lawyer Goldstein's cell phone calls, and he spoke to you on the 23rd at 8 AM and at 9:19. It said in the printout that it was 40 seconds long.
Witness: Maybe he did not talk to me, I remember one conversation.
Q: And you're sure that he did not ask you to wait with the interrogation until he arrived?
Witness: I don't remember. And I am not the authority who decides on that.
Witness: I am not authorized to interrogate a minor unless I am instructed to do so by an investigation officer.
Q: Did you notice at any stage that the defendant was tired, yawning, rested his head on the table?
Witness: Yes.
Q: What did you do about it?
Witness: Maybe I asked him to pick up his head, I don't remember exactly.
Q: Did you ask him why he was tired?
Witness: I don't remember, I suppose so.
Q: If you saw he was tired why didn't you take a break? Why didn't you say let's not even start interrogating him? Let's let him rest for a few hours and then we will continue to interrogate him?
Q: Do you remember at what point the defendant began to cry? Why he burst out crying?
Witness: Burst out crying is a little bit of a… he just cried and then I tried to understand whether it had anything to do with the interrogation and when I realized that it did not have anything to do with the interrogation we tried to calm him down.
Q: The reason he told you he was crying is that he was missing tests. He knew throughout the whole interrogation that he was missing tests. What was the situation in which he suddenly started crying because supposedly he was missing a test?
Witness: I don't remember.
Q: Are you authorized to investigate youth?
Witness: I am a police investigator and when necessary also a youth investigator.
Q: Do you have any training to investigate youth? Yes or no?
Witness: I am an investigator at the station and when necessary I also interrogate youth according to the instructions of the head of the investigation office or the youth investigation officer at the station. I am not an authorized youth investigator.
Q: At the Ma'ale Adumim station which law do you go by to investigate youth?
Witness: Like in all of the Israel Police, the Youth Law.
Q: Are you aware that there is a Youth Investigation Law in Israel?
Witness: Yes, I am aware.
Q: According to that law, until what time are you allowed to investigate youth?
Witness: If you are referring to the time the boys were interrogated, their interrogation was approved by the station's youth investigation officer and under his direction.
Q: But according to the law, until what time are you allowed to interrogate youth? Do you as an investigator know until what time?
Witness: I know a lot of things, I know about the Youth Law and the Drug Order Law and there are a lot of laws I understand.
Q: According to the Youth Law, until what time are you allowed to interrogate?
Witness: Until the age of 14, 8 PM, until the age of 16, 10 PM, and age 18 I think all night, I am not sure. But with the approval of the investigations officer you are allowed to investigate all night as needed.
Q: According to the Youth Law, until what time were you allowed to investigate them?
Witness: If you're referring to the interrogation of these boys, it was done under the direction of the investigations officer who directed me to interrogate them at the time that we interrogated them.
Q: You did not warn him or even tell him what he was accused of and that emerges from the documentation.
Witness: Maybe there is a technical defect but I told him his rights for sure.
Q: The whole interrogation is documented. You can see it from beginning to end. You did not warn him, plain and simple.
Witness: The suspect was warned and told his rights. To the contrary, his father was present and I filmed it and even his father understood the option of consulting a lawyer, which was actually stressed to the father. The warning in the investigation is standard procedure.
Q: And I'm telling you, I watched this disk and I did not hear any warning. You just sat him right down and started to question him.
Witness: It could be that the matter of the warning was not documented.
Q: Do you think it is not important?
Witness: I stressed to you that consulting is the interrogee' right and it is my duty to stress it to him and it is important.
Q: What if I tell you that the consultation with the interrogee's father is also recorded and you did not allow it, right away. You told the defendant's father that he was ruining the interrogation and you kicked him out of the room. Do you remember that?
Witness: The consultation of the minor with his father was done the way I am required to do it. The way I was instructed to do it, the way it needs to be done and that is the minor's right. However, it is a consultation and there are cases when minors' parents, instead of consulting disrupt the interrogation and in those cases we see no point in the consultation so we ask the parents to get out of the interrogation room so that they don't disrupt our interrogation. I do not remember kicking the minor's father out of the investigation room but if it appears then maybe he acted not in the way I explained to him and that is why maybe he went out, if it is documented as you say.
Q: According to the law is it consultation with parents or the presence of parents?
Witness: The youth officer who instructed me how to investigate instructed me to allow consultation without presence [of parents] in the investigation and that is what I did.
Q: Is that permissible by law? Do you work by the law or by the instructions of the officers?
Witness: I work both by the law and by the instructions of the officers who are my commanders.
Q: Let's go back to M.A. Where is his visual documentation?
Witness: Like in the case of Y.A., M.A.'s interrogation was also documented. The interrogation was burned on a disk, we are human beings, I don't know what the source of the mishap is, I understand the disk does not exist. The interrogation is saved for only 30 hours so we could not reconstruct it.
Q: According to the clocks here I see that as soon as you finished with Y. you began with M.A. Right?
Witness: I finished at 4:00 and started at 4:30.
Q: Did you warn M.A. before his testimony?
Witness: Yes.
Q: Did you warn him in the Arabic language?
Witness: In his language, in the Arabic language when his brother was present in the investigation room and it happened before the beginning of the interrogation. And he was given the possibility to consult with his brother and the right to a defense lawyer was explained to his brother.
Q: Could you repeat the warning in the Arabic language to the court?
Witness: Yes.
Q: I want to hear how you say it in Arabic.
Witness: the policeman says in Arabic: "The suspicion against you is such and such, everything you say will be written in your investigation file. You may consult a lawyer and you may also remain silent and not speak, Everything you say may be used against you in court."
Q: Were you present at the meeting between M.A. and his brother B.?
Witness: As far as I can remember, yes.
Q: Do you remember what they talked about?
Witness: No. I don't interfere in consultations.
Q: M.A. said here in court "I cried, I was scared, I asked them to let me talk to my brother and they didn't let me." Is he lying?
Witness: Yes. To the Court's question, I don't remember him crying but it was clear that he was upset, it is no fun to be arrested at night, soldiers come and it is no fun. He was upset. If there is a problem in certain cases, if I see an emotional suspect, I offer him a glass of water, a hot drink, if he's hungry or thirsty. Even though he's an interrogee he is still a human being. I don't remember him crying, I am very careful with children, a police interrogation is a trauma for life.
Q: Why do you think it was necessary to interrogate a child at 4:30 AM?
Witness: As I said, the method of arresting suspects, including minors, in the Arab villages, is done at night for security considerations, to avoid clashes. If it were in Israel the conditions would have been different and I suppose the investigation would be in the morning.
Q: I meant the interrogation, not the arrest.
Witness: As soon as the detainee arrived he was interrogated. There is no point to deny his freedom and to violate his freedom.
Appendix D - Synopsis of testimonies
given in the trial of A.C. From Nebbi Salah, aged 16 at the time the alleged offenses were committed, (Case 1367/10)
(our emphasis)
Primary examination of witness’ Moshe Madiuni, police investigator, by military prosecutor Adv. Capt. Michael Avitan
Witness: I worked as an investigator at the SJ district central unit. Altogether I have been police investigator for 26 years. I have all the training. I have also been trained as a youth investigator even though I do not do that every day.
On January 23, 2011 the suspect was brought to us by the army after he had been arrested by the army at around 9 AM. Right after his arrival we began the interrogation. Of course we read the suspect the suspicions against him, we explained to him what the suspicions are, we told him he did not have to say anything if he did not want to, that everything he said could be used as evidence against him and that if he did not answer questions it could strengthen the evidence against him and that he had the right to consult a lawyer.
As far as I understand the suspect understood what we explained to him and said everything he had to say. Everything was said from his own free and good will. The interrogation was documented visually from beginning to end continuously, as we do in many investigations. During the interrogation other people went in and out of the interrogation room, that is normal for us and we even brought in a native speaker to read him the confession word by word, her name is Nihi (witness for the prosecution no. 4), so there would be no doubts about what the confession said.
I want to point out that the suspect signed that he understood the warning and as for the testimony itself he did not sign it, that was after his meeting with the lawyer....
... the investigation was in the Arabic language, I speak spoken Arabic, I understood the suspect well and the suspect understood me and it is documented.
Q: We are now in the stage of the mini-trial arguments and there were allegations about the management of the interrogation, the way the defendant was treated, was there anything exceptional? Describe the atmosphere.
Witness: There was a good atmosphere, the interrogee spoke out of his free will, he cooperated fully and he gave us details that surprised us and we didn't even know... there was a relaxed atmosphere and I don't remember anything exceptional... we do not use violence, of course since we are talking about a pretty young boy we treated him accordingly, extremely gently. We even offered him to eat and drink.
Q: During the investigation it says the suspect cried. He answered that he was afraid to fail his tests in school. Tell us about that specific point.
Witness: I remember he said he had tests. He wanted to know what was going to happen to him at the end of the interrogation. I told him that when the interrogation ended whoever had to decide about him would make the decision. We really didn't know what was going to happen to him in the stage after the interrogation.
Q: What was your impression, how did the defendant look?
Witness: He looked fine, I don't remember anything exceptional... being arrested isn't easy. Besides that I didn't see anything special.
Q: Did he complain before the interrogation about anything that happened in the earlier stage? Did he say what happened to him earlier?
Witness: No.
Q: It said in some of the arguments that the lawyer was in constant contact with the interrogators at the beginning of the interrogation and informed them of his intention to meet the defendant. The interrogators began to interrogate the defendant without consulting a lawyer. What do you have to say about that allegation?
Witness: The lawyer called Arnon and asked whether the suspect had arrived to us, apparently he knew following the arrest, at that stage I think the suspect had not arrived to the interrogations yet but after that his treatment moved to the investigation officer. In any case, when we began the interrogation the lawyer was not present. But we told him he had the right to meet a lawyer. At a later stage I understood that the officer postponed the meeting for later.
Q: At what stage did he actually meet his lawyer?
Witness: The meeting actually occurred, if I am not mistaken, towards the end after they began reading him the testimony. One of the officers came and said that the lawyer arrived.
Q: Another allegation that was raised is that during the defendant's interrogation no parent or relative was present. Why?
Witness: I don't remember any investigation of a boy, resident of the Palestinian Authority, interrogated in the presence of parents. It is an arrest in the middle of the night, they never bring the parents, I can't remember any such thing. I don't make the rules. I have never seen an investigation in which the parents were present. That is the way it is done. And in most of the investigations I did with kids they never wanted to sit with their parents in the interrogation, it is very rare but they are given the right.
Q: It was also alleged that the defendant was not warned and was not told that he had the right to remain silent.
Witness: I said it was explained to him, we did it with extra emphasis because it was a young boy.
Q: It was also alleged that the interrogation was done by three and sometimes even four interrogators. The interrogators threw questions at him alternately and even simultaneously, and there were accusations and shouting and leading questions were asked. What is your response to that?
Witness: The interrogation was conducted in a good atmosphere, it was not an atmosphere of stress, the suspect cooperated and there was no need to exert any pressure. As I said, the interrogation is documented.
Q: So there were three interrogators?
Witness: Alternately, there may have been three at one point. It was not to exert pressure. To the Court's question, usually two people interrogate and sometimes the officer wants to join, another one joined towards the end who read him the testimony, she didn't participate in the actual interrogation... I don't remember shouting in the room, even if there was a shout or something like that it wasn't to exert pressure, there was no goal of extracting information from the suspect by pressure.
Cross-examination by the defense attorney, Gabi Laski
Q: Could you say in general that the suspicions are that the boy threw stones?
Witness: The boy participated in disturbances every Friday, I know that stones are thrown there.
Q: Did you know what time he was arrested?
Witness: I think it was in the middle of the night. Early morning.
Q: Do you know where he was until he came to you?
Witness: As far as I know they take them to a medical examination and by the time he comes to us it takes a while.
Q: So that means that it can be assumed that when he came to you he had been awake early in the morning?
Witness: I don't know whether he slept.
Q: Did you ask whether he slept?
Witness: I may have asked him how he felt, I assume I asked him. Maybe even on the way to bringing him into the room. I might have, but I don't remember, he looked fine to me and awake enough for an investigation, I was not impressed by anything unusual.
Q: Were you in the room as a youth investigator?
Witness: I am authorized to be a youth investigator. Did I put on my youth investigator hat? I suppose so.
Q: As a trained youth investigator, were you also trained about amendment 14 of the Youth Law?
Witness: No, I don't think so, my training was a long time ago.
Q: What kind of behavior did you use as a youth investigator in this investigation? How were you different?
Witness: A kind, fair and very gentle attitude.
Q: Who specifically warned the defendant?
Witness: I think I warned him, I explained to him what he was suspected of, what his rights are... I think I warned him well and he understood. During the interrogation he was also briefed that we talked to the lawyer. He did not ask at any stage to talk to the lawyer.
Q: Did you tell him, you are allowed not to speak in the investigation?
Witness: I told him he did not have to say anything.
Witness: Let's see the recording and I will tell you exactly what happened.
Q: If I tell you that you warned him twice and twice you did not tell him he was allowed to remain silent. In no word and in no way.
Witness: I am willing to see.
The court and the sides watch the tape. The interrogator explains to the defendant that he has the right to consult a lawyer and that everything he says may be used against him. He explain it a number of times and explains the suspicions against him and then he tells the interrogee that he better tell the truth. The interrogee asks whether if he tells the truth he will go home and the interrogator says we shall see, and that will be decided by the officers.
Furthermore, the interrogator tells the interrogee that if he made a mistake he must tell the truth, "everything you had (in Arabic: "lazem") to say." He offered him tea and he said he already had some. He types out the formula of the warning, reads out the interrogee's personal information, explains the names of the interrogators and the suspicions. Everything you say we are going to write down and if you do not answer it could strengthen the evidence. We ask him to write his name and the suspect writes. He asks where he lives.
Q: So you never told him he was allowed to remain silent?
Witness: He understood very well. There was nothing deliberate here and it looks authentic that I explain the suspect his rights and it seems to me he understood very well. Nothing was done deliberately. What was said is what was said, I think he understood he had the right to remain silent...
Q: Did Arnon and you know there was a lawyer?
Witness: In the background we knew there was a lawyer that was supposed to come.
Q: Why didn't you wait with the interrogation?
Witness: I told you, the suspect was brought for interrogation, he is a young boy, it is reasonable that he should be interrogated as soon as possible and I also understood that the lawyer wasn't going to come so fast and besides I was instructed to begin the interrogation I think by Jalal and that is what we did.
Q: When the lawyer arrived and you were in the interrogation who decided not to stop the interrogation and let the lawyer meet the interrogee?
Witness: I think it was the Chief Superintendent who is authorized. He was probably aware of what was going on in the interrogation... I said there were usually two of us interrogators and in this interrogation if I'm not mistaken there were three of us or maybe even four... if you do the statistics, I think most of the time there were two of us. I don't see anything wrong with 10 people being in the room if no pressure is exerted... each one asked when he thought he should ask. That is the dynamic of the interrogation.
Q: A 14-year-old boy throwing stones, three interrogators, five hours? Was there an interrogative necessity?
Witness: Apparently he gave important details.
Q: Including the prevention of the meeting with the lawyer?
Witness: That is not in my authority.
Q: When the defendant burst out crying during the interrogation, do you remember what set that off?
Witness: I think the business about the tests, he was worried about his tests. He was afraid to miss them.
Q: Why did he think about that in the middle of his interrogation?
Witness: It did not come up only once. I don't remember why the crying began.
Q: Is it possible that at different stages of the interrogation he looked very tired and rested his head on the table?
Witness: Possibly towards the end.
Q: Did you as a youth investigator ever think maybe we better stop?
Witness: That is why it is important to begin the investigation fast.
Q: Is it possible maybe to let him sleep first?
Witness: We don't have the conditions of a detention center. And it wasn't clear either what would happen to him at the end of the interrogation and I mean this completely seriously.
Primary examination of witness, Warrant Officer Arnon Yahav, police investigator, by military prosecutor Adv. Capt. Michael Avitan
Witness: I have been an investigator in the SJ district central unit investigation department for five and half years, as an investigator for five and half years and in the police for 10 years... I recognize my signature on the investigation from January 23, 2011.
... the investigation took place in a very positive atmosphere. The suspect cooperated fully... there was nothing exceptional.
Q: There was an allegation during the mini-trial allegation stage that the defendant did not receive notice that his lawyer was on the way and you began the interrogation without allowing him the right to consult a lawyer. What do you have to say about that?
Witness: His lawyer contacted me and told me he was on the way. He asked me whether the suspect, whose name I did not know yet, had arrived yet and I said that he had not arrived yet and that the moment he arrived to us for investigation we would make contact with him... and that is exactly what happened. The defendant came for investigation, I contacted the investigation officer and said to him "please contact the lawyer and inform him" and that is what happened. To the Court's question, I mean the investigations officer Jalal.
Q: It was alleged that the defendant's meeting with the lawyer was prevented by the interrogators and actually when he met his lawyer the interrogation was already over. What is your response to that?
Witness: I received instructions to begin the interrogation and that is what I did.
Q: It was alleged that the defendant was not lawfully warned. What is your response to that?
Witness: He was lawfully warned, it was explained to him, he was asked whether he understood and he answered that he did.
Q: Do you remember that it was explained to him that he had the right to remain silent in the interrogation?
Witness: Yes.
Q: Likewise it was alleged that during the interrogation there were between three and four interrogators. What is your response to that?
Witness: I was with interrogator Moshe Madiuni. Jalal occasionally entered the interrogation and another interrogation officer but most of the interrogation was conducted by Moshe and me.
Q: Were there accusations or shouting at the interrogee?
Witness: No. I want to add that there were parts when we joked with him and laughed with him and it was all done freely.
Q: Was the manner of the interrogation aggressive and humiliating?
Witness: No.
Q: It was alleged that psychological pressure was exerted by the interrogators during the interrogation. What is your response to that?
Witness: There was no psychological pressure. The interrogation was very pleasant and the evidence is that at the end of his interrogation he came over to me and hugged me, and I am not used to that, and I hugged him back.
Q: When he came to the interrogation, what was your impression of his physical and emotional state?
Witness: From the first moment I tried to allay his fears. Not just me, so did the investigator Moshe. We spoke to him respectfully, pleasantly. We explained his rights to him.
Q: It was alleged that before he was brought by the army he was beaten. Did you see any physical signs of that? Did he tell you anything? What was your impression of him when he arrived?
Witness: For his entire interrogation he did not claim that he had been beaten nor did I see any signs on him.
Q: You wrote an investigator's note that the suspect cried, that happened two hours and 45 minutes after the beginning of the interrogation. Tell us why he cried.
Witness: I saw him crying, I asked him why he was crying, I thought maybe it had something to do with our interrogation. Maybe. He told me he was crying because he was afraid he would miss a test. I assume we reassured him about that and that's all.
Q: Did he receive anything during the interrogation? Did he ask for certain things during the interrogation?
Witness: No. He did not ask. We offered him the usual things -- food, drink, we kept offering him -- and if we ate we shared with him. That's all...
Cross-examination
Q: So you speak fluent Arabic? How would you define your level?
Witness: I speak Arabic well.
Q: Were you trained as a youth investigator?
Witness: No. I was trained as an investigator.
Q: Why were you at the interrogation?
Witness: Because I was instructed to be at the interrogation.
Q: Are you aware that a minor is supposed to be interrogated, according to the document, by a youth interrogator?
Witness: Yes, that is what happened.
Q: So you did not interrogate him?
Witness: I interrogated him too.
Q: So how does that square? The order says[SLS1] "shall be interrogated by a youth interrogator too" but "by youth interrogators." How does that square?
Witness: It squares because there was a youth interrogator interrogating him and I was with him.
Q: You just said that you too interrogated him.
Witness: Exactly what I said.
Q: And as far as you're concerned that squares with the order just great.
Witness: It squares with the directive I received, to interrogate him.
Q: How do you say in Arabic "you do not have to say anything"?
Witness: "mish lazem tihki ishi."
Q: And "you have the right to remain silent"?
Witness: What is this, a test in Arabic?... "mrak al-haq tuskut ma tihkish ishi" as long as he understands me.
Q: You wrote in the investigation, it says here that you inform him "you do not have to say anything."
Witness: Yes.
Q: In the video it is not said.
Witness: Can I see that page? So I tell you, it is built-in, in the testimony itself, inside the testimony, in the body of the testimony.
Q: So could you have not warned him?
Witness: As far as I can remember and understand he was warned and it was completely clear to him what he was being interrogated about and it was all done pleasantly.
Q: So I ask you: the warning has a few rights, right? One of them, maybe the main one, is the right to remain silent. I say that you did not tell him that.
Witness: As far as I can remember, the interrogator Moshe warned him and explained it to him. If you are telling me we did not say it than we did not say it.
Q: Is it true that lawyer Goldstein called you?
Witness: Yes.
Q: In the morning, and said he wanted to meet the defendant before the interrogation?
Witness: That is not what he said.
Q: You spoke to him once?
Witness: As far as I can remember he called me in the morning and asked whether the suspect had arrived, I don't remember the name he said, I didn't even know the name of the suspect who was supposed to be interrogated and I told him that he had not arrived yet and that when he arrived I would let him know.
Q: So you are saying you spoke to him once?
Witness: As far as I can remember yes... on the office phone... I don't member what time.
Q: We extracted a printout of lawyer Goldstein's cell phone calls, and he spoke to you on the 23rd at 8 AM and at 9:19. It said in the printout that it was 40 seconds long.
Witness: Maybe he did not talk to me, I remember one conversation.
Q: And you're sure that he did not ask you to wait with the interrogation until he arrived?
Witness: I don't remember. And I am not the authority who decides on that.
Witness: I am not authorized to interrogate a minor unless I am instructed to do so by an investigation officer.
Q: Did you notice at any stage that the defendant was tired, yawning, rested his head on the table?
Witness: Yes.
Q: What did you do about it?
Witness: Maybe I asked him to pick up his head, I don't remember exactly.
Q: Did you ask him why he was tired?
Witness: I don't remember, I suppose so.
Q: If you saw he was tired why didn't you take a break? Why didn't you say let's not even start interrogating him? Let's let him rest for a few hours and then we will continue to interrogate him?
Q: Do you remember at what point the defendant began to cry? Why he burst out crying?
Witness: Burst out crying is a little bit of a… he just cried and then I tried to understand whether it had anything to do with the interrogation and when I realized that it did not have anything to do with the interrogation we tried to calm him down.
Q: The reason he told you he was crying is that he was missing tests. He knew throughout the whole interrogation that he was missing tests. What was the situation in which he suddenly started crying because supposedly he was missing a test?
Witness: I don't remember.
