Primary examination of witness, Inspector Jalal Awayda, in charge of the interrogation, by military prosecutor Adv. Capt. Michael Avitan
Witness: I am an investigation officer at the SJ district central unit, with the police for three and a half years. Before I was also an investigator in the terrorism unit... I don't remember by heart the interrogation of the defendant before us, I want to see what it says... I see this is about the interrogation of A.S. who was interrogated about disturbing public order and throwing stones.
I see he was warned and read his rights lawfully and in the body of the testimony I see that just like in any other interrogation he is asked questions and answers them... in the testimony I see there is a comment by the interrogator says that the lawyer... from the comment I remember a few things, the investigator Arnon Yahav informed me that the lawyer Limor called and asked whether a boy named A. had arrived in the unit and I told him he had not arrived yet and that when he arrived we would inform him.
And indeed, the moment the detainee arrived, that is something I did at the time, I called the lawyer Limor and told him "the suspect you asked about has arrived at our unit." Lawyer Limor, as I remember, I can still hear it in my head, I remember we argued and he told me he wanted to petition the HCJ first and that is why I remember it well. I called lawyer Limor and told him the suspect had arrived at the unit and he said to me okay, I am coming from Tel Aviv by taxi.
I ordered the interrogation to start, there was an instruction to begin the interrogation and the interrogation began... in the suspect's native language... the atmosphere was relaxed, the atmosphere was, I would even say they treated him as if he were their own son, they gave him attention, they were concerned about his needs all the time, they kept offering him drink and food and chocolate, I saw that during the investigation.
Q: The defense alleges the defendant's right to consult a lawyer was denied. What is your reaction?
Witness: No such right was denied as the defense alleges. The suspect chose to speak in the interrogation, had he asked to consult a lawyer we would have allowed it immediately and without delay as we do in all the other interrogation and as for the lawyer Limor, there was an instruction not to wait because I also told my superiors that lawyer Limor was coming from Tel Aviv by taxi, which would clearly have taken some time to arrive at the unit, and it would not be a reasonable length of time of 20 minutes, half an hour, and therefore there was an instruction to begin the interrogation and that is how it was done.
So that all in all, if you look at it carefully, this claim should be rejected for the simple reason that throughout the entire interrogation and the procedures that occurred there, there is no indication that the suspect elementary's right to consult a lawyer was denied.
Q: The defense also alleges that the defendant's meeting with the lawyer was prevented and only after the interrogation had actually ended did the interrogators let the suspect meet his lawyer.
Witness:... there was a directive to begin the interrogation and when it began and when the interrogation was underway as far as I remember that is when a lawyer representing the suspect arrived, namely the lawyer Limor, and at that time when he wanted to meet the suspect a document was issued ordering the postponement of the meeting of the lawyer with the client, a document issued lawfully because an officer at the level of chief superintendent and up can issue such a document, namely postponing a meeting with a lawyer by hours and in certain circumstances by days.
Cross-examination
Q: You said that parental presence is not viable in this kind of interrogation. As an investigation officer in charge of this interrogation did you make every effort to find out whether the minor's parents could be present in this interrogation?
Witness: To remove any doubt, that law does not exist in the territories. In this specific case I did not attempt to summon the parents...
Q: According to the Youth Law is it permissible to interrogate minors in the middle of the night?
Witness: If I remember correctly, there are defined hours to interrogate minors, and if I remember correctly they can be interrogated between 7 PM and 10 PM but there are also exceptions that don't fall into that category, when you can interrogate at night. For example, if the offense was committed close to the time of arrest then it is allowed.
Q: The arrest of this minor was a planned arrest that occurred at 2 AM. Do you know exactly what happened with that minor whom you interrogated at 2 AM until he arrived in the investigation room?
Witness: I cannot testify about something at which I was not present.
Q: During the five hours of the tape, you see that the suspect who is a minor keeps on yawning, rests his head on the table and almost falls asleep and nobody asks him if he is tired, if he wants to sleep... how does that square with what you said, that you asked him if he is tired?
Witness: I did not watch the whole recording but I can testify that the boy, this suspect, knows very well what he wants and if he had felt the need to stop the interrogation in order to eat, even though they kept offering him food, and I even witnessed them giving him water and bringing him food and chocolate, and the interrogators for sure were not impressed that he could not continue the interrogation.
And this is the place to say that we do not need to be naïve, the suspect at the end of his interrogation, you say that in the middle he was yawning and tired, he was alert enough to say there that the Arabic language is my native language and he said about four sentences there in the literary language, which I think a boy that age has to have a very high IQ to say.
So it turns out that this guy does know what he wants and does know what he doesn't want and I even remember from that part of the recording that I saw, if I remember correctly, that when somebody came whose native language is Arabic and started translating the testimony into Arabic for him so he would approve it, he knew to correct her with literary words and to point out the differences between the things that she said and did things that he said.
Q: Are you saying that a smart boy can not be tired?
Witness: A smart boy can be tired and a tired boy can be smart.
Q: According to the phone printout, he called you from the gate at 10:49, that is one hour and three minutes later, we see you answering the phone and telling lawyer Goldstein that he could not come in with his car but he is about to send people to come pick him up. He does not say he cannot meet A. and then you go out to the department head and only at 11:10, about 20 minutes after the lawyer got to the station, the department head issued the prevention of meeting [order] and you say that you went out and you told him that the lawyer is at the gate.
Do you agree with me that the order [prevention of meeting] was issued 20 minutes after the lawyer was at the gate?
Witness: Assuming the facts are correct as my colleague presents them, I will say this: on this matter he didn't say that he arrived and I didn't tell him that he would or would not meet, after all I just did something that is appropriate to the status of the lawyer, I wanted to bring him from outside into the department, without referring to whether he would or would not meet.
As for the second part, if it is as you say and as it is recorded in the memo, I may have informed the department head that the lawyer arrived and an hour and a half later as you say, he saw what was coming up in the interrogation and thought it would be advised to prevent it.
Q: You said there was nothing exceptional in this interrogation. For a long time the child cried during the interrogation. Is that not exceptional to you?
Witness: To say whether it is exceptional or not we would have to check the circumstances that caused him to cry.
Q: Did you find out the circumstances of his crying?
Witness: I assume he was crying because of the things he said because he was sorry. That is based on the credibility of what my colleague says she watched.
Q: You as an interrogator, and with a youth interrogator supposedly in the room, how are you supposed to treat the crying of a minor?
Witness: It depends what made him cry. Let him let it out, externalize his feelings, offer him water to drink, let him calm down, give him some time for himself. Not when he's crying, I don't know which section you are talking about, we do not urge him to talk while he is crying.
The testimony of Lawyer Limor Goldstein:
From the primary investigation:
Q: What did you do from the moment you found out the defendant was arrested?
Witness: "From the moment I found out the defendant was arrested I tried first of all to find him. For that purpose I made many phone calls, the first one at 8:23 AM to the SJ district central unit. I believe I spoke to the investigator Arnon, I was told the defendant had not arrived at the station yet. [In his testimony he provides details of all of the phone call to all of the military, prison service and police parties]. At 9:19 I called the SJ district central unit again, I got the same answer again, that the defendant had not arrived at the station.
At about 9:49 I got a call from the terror investigator Jalal informing me that the defendant had arrived at the SJ district central unit. I told him I was leaving right away, that I was taking a taxi, and I really was near a taxi, I got there in exactly one hour. At 10:49 I called the investigator Jalal and told him I arrived. He said he would send someone to bring me in.
A few minutes went by, I found out the defendant had already gone into the interrogation but he would still let me meet him. And 10 minutes later I was told that there was a meeting prevention [order] until 14:30 and they would not let me meet him earlier. I would like to explain that I made all of these calls waiting outside of the station, they did not let me in as if it were some kind of secret facility.
At 13:58 I called Jalal and asked him if I could come in, he said he would come and bring me in. At 14:30 I really was at the station, Jalal came to pick me up, on the way there I tried to understand from him why he didn't tell me in advance that he wasn't waiting for me even though it was clear I was coming to meet him before the interrogation. He did not have an answer. He sat me in the corridor of the department where I waited even more even though the time of the prevention had passed.
Only about 15-20 minutes after the time of the prevention was I allowed to meet the defendant. He was taken out of the department into a small room, I saw a little boy who when he saw me burst out crying, he looked exhausted, I introduced myself, I asked him about the interrogation, he told me that he said in the interrogation that he had thrown only one stone, I asked him about his arrest and the time until he got to the police.
He said the soldiers had threatened and hit him and at that moment I thought I would write it down and take a deposition from him. I understood that the defendant was upset and in a bad state so I decided to let it go. Before we parted the defendant asked me not to leave him alone. I explained to him that that was not possible, that he would be okay, he repeated the request a few times.
[1] Order regarding security regulations (Emergency Provisions) ((Amendment No. 109)
[2] See: Military Juvenile Court established, IDF Spokesman’s announcement :
[3] Youth Law (Adjudication, Punishment and Modes of Treatment), 1971
[4] 700,000 according to: UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territories occupied since 1967, Professor John Dugard, Human Rights Situation in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories (21 January 2008), A/HRC/7/17, paragraph 45:
650,000 according an estimation of the Palestinian Ministry of Prisoners, quated in:
Maya Rosenfeld, The Centrality of the Prisoners' Movement to the Palestinian Struggle Against the Israeli Occupation : A Historical Perspective, in Baker and Matar, eds, Threat: Palestinian Political Prisoners in Israel (Pluto Press, 2011).
[5] Defence for Children International-Palestine, Palestinian Child Prisoners: The systematic and institutionalised ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian children by Israeli authorities, (June 2009)
[6] Proclamation No. 2, Proclamation No.3
[7] For criticism of the activity of military courts in recent years see “Backyard Proceedings,””a report by the “Yesh Din" organization 2007. Sharon Weill, 'The Judicial Arm of the Occupation: The Israeli Military Courts in the Occupied Territories' (2007), International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 89 395
[8] The Order was enacted in 1970 as the order Regarding Security Provisions (Judea and Samaria) (No. 378) - 1970. Between 1967 to - 1970 there was a Security Provisions Order issued as an appendix to Proclamation No. 3, in June 1967.
[9] Order Regarding Security Provisions (Interim Provisions) (Amendment No. 109). The provisions were incorporated into the Security Provisions Order, See Appendix A below.
[10] See the preamble to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989); the explanations to Amendment No. 14 of the Youth Law (Adjudication, Punishment and Modes of Treatment), and the report of the Public Committee on Children and the Law (Rotlevi Committee).
[11] Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). Hereinafter: the convention or:CRC.
[12] Section 1 of the Convention, CRC Committee, General Comment No. 10. This General Comment is also relevant to all the rights below.
[13] Section 3 of the Convention
[14] Section 37( A) of the Convention
[15] Section 37(B) of the Convention
[16] Section 37(C) of the Convention
[17] Section 37(D) of the Convention
[18] Section 40 of the Convention
[19] Section 40 (2) of the Convention
[20] Section 40 of the Convention; Section 14 of the Covenant On Civil and Political rights, Section 15 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 22 Section 1A ( A) of the Youth Law (Judging, Punishment and Modes of Treatment) - 1971,
[22] Section 1B of the Youth Law
Section 9D of the Youth Law. There are exceptions to this rule for special cases, subject to the authorization of a Police Officer.
[23] Section 9I (B) of the Youth Law.
[24] The Law of Criminal Procedure (Interrogating Suspects) - 2002
[25] Sections 2, 3 of the Youth Law. Sections 10C., 10Dz of the Youth Law., Sections 10C., 10Dz of the Youth Law
[26] Sections 10C., 10Dz of the Youth Law
[27] 30 Criminal Procedures law (Detainee suspected of a security offence) (Emergency Provision) – 2006.Despite misgivings as to whether the law applies to minors, we have chosen to present this fact in the report, since most offences brought before military courts are defined as security offences. Therefore, it might be claimed that they should be compared to the law in Israel that applies to security offences. Even by this comparison, the military law in the territories determines a period of 8 days before the suspected offender must be brought before a judge. This is double the maximum time in Israel.
[28] Section 10A of the Youth Law.
[29] Section 10J (1) of the Youth Law.
[30] Section 10G of the Youth Law.
[31] Sections 21,24 of the Youth Law
[32] Section 22 of the Youth Law
[33]
[34] Section 25 to the Youth Law
[35] Detention Appeal Judea & Samaria 2912/09, The Military Prosecutor v. Nasmi Abu Rahma, delivered31/8/09, posted on Nevo website
See comments by president of the Military Court of Appeals A. Mishnayot in the verdict in AA (Judea and Samaria) 2912/09 Military Prosecutor v Abu Rahmah (published on the Nevo website) from August 31, 2009: "… the military courts, which began about a year ago, voluntarily, to separate the judging of minors from the judging of adults, pioneered by the Samaria Military Court, quickly followed by the Judea Military Court. The courts voluntarily adopted the age of minority in Israel concerning the separation of the trials of minors and adults."
[36] See report of the committee to examine convictions based solely on an admission and grounds for retrial ("the Goldberg Committee"), 1994.
[37] Section 12 of the Evidence Order [New Version] 1971, Section 86 of the Security Provisions Order provides that the military courts will follow the rules of evidence that apply in Israel.
[38] CA 5121/98 Issacharov v Chief Military Prosecutor et al, published on Nevo site
[39] J. Kedmi, Of Evidence, volume 4, p. 1823.
[41] Regulation 58b of the Defence (Emergency) Regulations - 1945.
[SLS1]Possible error in the transcript, should say "does not say"?
Witness: I am an investigation officer at the SJ district central unit, with the police for three and a half years. Before I was also an investigator in the terrorism unit... I don't remember by heart the interrogation of the defendant before us, I want to see what it says... I see this is about the interrogation of A.S. who was interrogated about disturbing public order and throwing stones.
I see he was warned and read his rights lawfully and in the body of the testimony I see that just like in any other interrogation he is asked questions and answers them... in the testimony I see there is a comment by the interrogator says that the lawyer... from the comment I remember a few things, the investigator Arnon Yahav informed me that the lawyer Limor called and asked whether a boy named A. had arrived in the unit and I told him he had not arrived yet and that when he arrived we would inform him.
And indeed, the moment the detainee arrived, that is something I did at the time, I called the lawyer Limor and told him "the suspect you asked about has arrived at our unit." Lawyer Limor, as I remember, I can still hear it in my head, I remember we argued and he told me he wanted to petition the HCJ first and that is why I remember it well. I called lawyer Limor and told him the suspect had arrived at the unit and he said to me okay, I am coming from Tel Aviv by taxi.
I ordered the interrogation to start, there was an instruction to begin the interrogation and the interrogation began... in the suspect's native language... the atmosphere was relaxed, the atmosphere was, I would even say they treated him as if he were their own son, they gave him attention, they were concerned about his needs all the time, they kept offering him drink and food and chocolate, I saw that during the investigation.
Q: The defense alleges the defendant's right to consult a lawyer was denied. What is your reaction?
Witness: No such right was denied as the defense alleges. The suspect chose to speak in the interrogation, had he asked to consult a lawyer we would have allowed it immediately and without delay as we do in all the other interrogation and as for the lawyer Limor, there was an instruction not to wait because I also told my superiors that lawyer Limor was coming from Tel Aviv by taxi, which would clearly have taken some time to arrive at the unit, and it would not be a reasonable length of time of 20 minutes, half an hour, and therefore there was an instruction to begin the interrogation and that is how it was done.
So that all in all, if you look at it carefully, this claim should be rejected for the simple reason that throughout the entire interrogation and the procedures that occurred there, there is no indication that the suspect elementary's right to consult a lawyer was denied.
Q: The defense also alleges that the defendant's meeting with the lawyer was prevented and only after the interrogation had actually ended did the interrogators let the suspect meet his lawyer.
Witness:... there was a directive to begin the interrogation and when it began and when the interrogation was underway as far as I remember that is when a lawyer representing the suspect arrived, namely the lawyer Limor, and at that time when he wanted to meet the suspect a document was issued ordering the postponement of the meeting of the lawyer with the client, a document issued lawfully because an officer at the level of chief superintendent and up can issue such a document, namely postponing a meeting with a lawyer by hours and in certain circumstances by days.
Cross-examination
Q: You said that parental presence is not viable in this kind of interrogation. As an investigation officer in charge of this interrogation did you make every effort to find out whether the minor's parents could be present in this interrogation?
Witness: To remove any doubt, that law does not exist in the territories. In this specific case I did not attempt to summon the parents...
Q: According to the Youth Law is it permissible to interrogate minors in the middle of the night?
Witness: If I remember correctly, there are defined hours to interrogate minors, and if I remember correctly they can be interrogated between 7 PM and 10 PM but there are also exceptions that don't fall into that category, when you can interrogate at night. For example, if the offense was committed close to the time of arrest then it is allowed.
Q: The arrest of this minor was a planned arrest that occurred at 2 AM. Do you know exactly what happened with that minor whom you interrogated at 2 AM until he arrived in the investigation room?
Witness: I cannot testify about something at which I was not present.
Q: During the five hours of the tape, you see that the suspect who is a minor keeps on yawning, rests his head on the table and almost falls asleep and nobody asks him if he is tired, if he wants to sleep... how does that square with what you said, that you asked him if he is tired?
Witness: I did not watch the whole recording but I can testify that the boy, this suspect, knows very well what he wants and if he had felt the need to stop the interrogation in order to eat, even though they kept offering him food, and I even witnessed them giving him water and bringing him food and chocolate, and the interrogators for sure were not impressed that he could not continue the interrogation.
And this is the place to say that we do not need to be naïve, the suspect at the end of his interrogation, you say that in the middle he was yawning and tired, he was alert enough to say there that the Arabic language is my native language and he said about four sentences there in the literary language, which I think a boy that age has to have a very high IQ to say.
So it turns out that this guy does know what he wants and does know what he doesn't want and I even remember from that part of the recording that I saw, if I remember correctly, that when somebody came whose native language is Arabic and started translating the testimony into Arabic for him so he would approve it, he knew to correct her with literary words and to point out the differences between the things that she said and did things that he said.
Q: Are you saying that a smart boy can not be tired?
Witness: A smart boy can be tired and a tired boy can be smart.
Q: According to the phone printout, he called you from the gate at 10:49, that is one hour and three minutes later, we see you answering the phone and telling lawyer Goldstein that he could not come in with his car but he is about to send people to come pick him up. He does not say he cannot meet A. and then you go out to the department head and only at 11:10, about 20 minutes after the lawyer got to the station, the department head issued the prevention of meeting [order] and you say that you went out and you told him that the lawyer is at the gate.
Do you agree with me that the order [prevention of meeting] was issued 20 minutes after the lawyer was at the gate?
Witness: Assuming the facts are correct as my colleague presents them, I will say this: on this matter he didn't say that he arrived and I didn't tell him that he would or would not meet, after all I just did something that is appropriate to the status of the lawyer, I wanted to bring him from outside into the department, without referring to whether he would or would not meet.
As for the second part, if it is as you say and as it is recorded in the memo, I may have informed the department head that the lawyer arrived and an hour and a half later as you say, he saw what was coming up in the interrogation and thought it would be advised to prevent it.
Q: You said there was nothing exceptional in this interrogation. For a long time the child cried during the interrogation. Is that not exceptional to you?
Witness: To say whether it is exceptional or not we would have to check the circumstances that caused him to cry.
Q: Did you find out the circumstances of his crying?
Witness: I assume he was crying because of the things he said because he was sorry. That is based on the credibility of what my colleague says she watched.
Q: You as an interrogator, and with a youth interrogator supposedly in the room, how are you supposed to treat the crying of a minor?
Witness: It depends what made him cry. Let him let it out, externalize his feelings, offer him water to drink, let him calm down, give him some time for himself. Not when he's crying, I don't know which section you are talking about, we do not urge him to talk while he is crying.
The testimony of Lawyer Limor Goldstein:
From the primary investigation:
Q: What did you do from the moment you found out the defendant was arrested?
Witness: "From the moment I found out the defendant was arrested I tried first of all to find him. For that purpose I made many phone calls, the first one at 8:23 AM to the SJ district central unit. I believe I spoke to the investigator Arnon, I was told the defendant had not arrived at the station yet. [In his testimony he provides details of all of the phone call to all of the military, prison service and police parties]. At 9:19 I called the SJ district central unit again, I got the same answer again, that the defendant had not arrived at the station.
At about 9:49 I got a call from the terror investigator Jalal informing me that the defendant had arrived at the SJ district central unit. I told him I was leaving right away, that I was taking a taxi, and I really was near a taxi, I got there in exactly one hour. At 10:49 I called the investigator Jalal and told him I arrived. He said he would send someone to bring me in.
A few minutes went by, I found out the defendant had already gone into the interrogation but he would still let me meet him. And 10 minutes later I was told that there was a meeting prevention [order] until 14:30 and they would not let me meet him earlier. I would like to explain that I made all of these calls waiting outside of the station, they did not let me in as if it were some kind of secret facility.
At 13:58 I called Jalal and asked him if I could come in, he said he would come and bring me in. At 14:30 I really was at the station, Jalal came to pick me up, on the way there I tried to understand from him why he didn't tell me in advance that he wasn't waiting for me even though it was clear I was coming to meet him before the interrogation. He did not have an answer. He sat me in the corridor of the department where I waited even more even though the time of the prevention had passed.
Only about 15-20 minutes after the time of the prevention was I allowed to meet the defendant. He was taken out of the department into a small room, I saw a little boy who when he saw me burst out crying, he looked exhausted, I introduced myself, I asked him about the interrogation, he told me that he said in the interrogation that he had thrown only one stone, I asked him about his arrest and the time until he got to the police.
He said the soldiers had threatened and hit him and at that moment I thought I would write it down and take a deposition from him. I understood that the defendant was upset and in a bad state so I decided to let it go. Before we parted the defendant asked me not to leave him alone. I explained to him that that was not possible, that he would be okay, he repeated the request a few times.
[1] Order regarding security regulations (Emergency Provisions) ((Amendment No. 109)
[2] See: Military Juvenile Court established, IDF Spokesman’s announcement :
[3] Youth Law (Adjudication, Punishment and Modes of Treatment), 1971
[4] 700,000 according to: UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territories occupied since 1967, Professor John Dugard, Human Rights Situation in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories (21 January 2008), A/HRC/7/17, paragraph 45:
650,000 according an estimation of the Palestinian Ministry of Prisoners, quated in:
Maya Rosenfeld, The Centrality of the Prisoners' Movement to the Palestinian Struggle Against the Israeli Occupation : A Historical Perspective, in Baker and Matar, eds, Threat: Palestinian Political Prisoners in Israel (Pluto Press, 2011).
[5] Defence for Children International-Palestine, Palestinian Child Prisoners: The systematic and institutionalised ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian children by Israeli authorities, (June 2009)
[6] Proclamation No. 2, Proclamation No.3
[7] For criticism of the activity of military courts in recent years see “Backyard Proceedings,””a report by the “Yesh Din" organization 2007. Sharon Weill, 'The Judicial Arm of the Occupation: The Israeli Military Courts in the Occupied Territories' (2007), International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 89 395
[8] The Order was enacted in 1970 as the order Regarding Security Provisions (Judea and Samaria) (No. 378) - 1970. Between 1967 to - 1970 there was a Security Provisions Order issued as an appendix to Proclamation No. 3, in June 1967.
[9] Order Regarding Security Provisions (Interim Provisions) (Amendment No. 109). The provisions were incorporated into the Security Provisions Order, See Appendix A below.
[10] See the preamble to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989); the explanations to Amendment No. 14 of the Youth Law (Adjudication, Punishment and Modes of Treatment), and the report of the Public Committee on Children and the Law (Rotlevi Committee).
[11] Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). Hereinafter: the convention or:CRC.
[12] Section 1 of the Convention, CRC Committee, General Comment No. 10. This General Comment is also relevant to all the rights below.
[13] Section 3 of the Convention
[14] Section 37( A) of the Convention
[15] Section 37(B) of the Convention
[16] Section 37(C) of the Convention
[17] Section 37(D) of the Convention
[18] Section 40 of the Convention
[19] Section 40 (2) of the Convention
[20] Section 40 of the Convention; Section 14 of the Covenant On Civil and Political rights, Section 15 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 22 Section 1A ( A) of the Youth Law (Judging, Punishment and Modes of Treatment) - 1971,
[22] Section 1B of the Youth Law
Section 9D of the Youth Law. There are exceptions to this rule for special cases, subject to the authorization of a Police Officer.
[23] Section 9I (B) of the Youth Law.
[24] The Law of Criminal Procedure (Interrogating Suspects) - 2002
[25] Sections 2, 3 of the Youth Law. Sections 10C., 10Dz of the Youth Law., Sections 10C., 10Dz of the Youth Law
[26] Sections 10C., 10Dz of the Youth Law
[27] 30 Criminal Procedures law (Detainee suspected of a security offence) (Emergency Provision) – 2006.Despite misgivings as to whether the law applies to minors, we have chosen to present this fact in the report, since most offences brought before military courts are defined as security offences. Therefore, it might be claimed that they should be compared to the law in Israel that applies to security offences. Even by this comparison, the military law in the territories determines a period of 8 days before the suspected offender must be brought before a judge. This is double the maximum time in Israel.
[28] Section 10A of the Youth Law.
[29] Section 10J (1) of the Youth Law.
[30] Section 10G of the Youth Law.
[31] Sections 21,24 of the Youth Law
[32] Section 22 of the Youth Law
[33]
[34] Section 25 to the Youth Law
[35] Detention Appeal Judea & Samaria 2912/09, The Military Prosecutor v. Nasmi Abu Rahma, delivered31/8/09, posted on Nevo website
See comments by president of the Military Court of Appeals A. Mishnayot in the verdict in AA (Judea and Samaria) 2912/09 Military Prosecutor v Abu Rahmah (published on the Nevo website) from August 31, 2009: "… the military courts, which began about a year ago, voluntarily, to separate the judging of minors from the judging of adults, pioneered by the Samaria Military Court, quickly followed by the Judea Military Court. The courts voluntarily adopted the age of minority in Israel concerning the separation of the trials of minors and adults."
[36] See report of the committee to examine convictions based solely on an admission and grounds for retrial ("the Goldberg Committee"), 1994.
[37] Section 12 of the Evidence Order [New Version] 1971, Section 86 of the Security Provisions Order provides that the military courts will follow the rules of evidence that apply in Israel.
[38] CA 5121/98 Issacharov v Chief Military Prosecutor et al, published on Nevo site
[39] J. Kedmi, Of Evidence, volume 4, p. 1823.
[41] Regulation 58b of the Defence (Emergency) Regulations - 1945.
[SLS1]Possible error in the transcript, should say "does not say"?
