UPDATE April 18, 2014: Following widespread publication of the story on the internet, the Prohibition of Publication Decree was revoked this morning, aand the story was finally published by Israeli media.
Majd Kayyal - 23-year-old Israeli citizen, a journalist under incommunicado confinement in Israel.
____
OccupyTLV, April 16 - Judge Zaid Falah of the Haifa Magistrate Court issued on April 13, 2014, a Protocol and a Decision, remanding Majd Kayyal to confinement and interrogation. [1] The court hearing was conducted "behind closed doors". Mr Kayyal was denied access to his counsel, and Judge Falah included in the same April 13, 2014 Decision, a Prohibition of Publication Decree on the entire matter.[1,2]
Page 4 of the April 13, 2014 Protocol and Decision by Judge Zaid Falah of the Haifa Magistrate Court in Israel Police Central Unit vs. Kayyal (23318-04-14)
DECISION...
6. Therefore I remand the Suspect till April 22, 2014 at 10:00am.
7. I herein issue Decree of Prohibition of Publication on all process in instant case, until April 22, 2014 at 10:00 am, and all process is to be conducted behind closed doors.
Instant protocol provides legal authority for detention.
Issued and noticed on April 13, 2014, in the presence of the parties.
[signed]
__________
Dr Zaid Fallah, Judge
____
The matter of Majd Kayyal also came up in daily State Department briefing on April 14, 2014. [3]
This writer published widely the records of Mr Kayyal's arrest, [1] and well as other records of the Haifa Magistrate Court, conducted "Behind Closed Doors", and purportedly subject to "Prohibition of Publication Decree". [4]
Surprisingly, the Israeli authorities fail to take any action in view of such blatant defiance of the Court.
Public access to court records, to inspect and to copy, is a fundamental right, crucial for transparency and integrity of the courts. Public access to court records in Israel is heavily restricted.
Prohibition of Publication Decrees are typical of totalitarian regimes, but are still common in Israel.
Such overall conditions raise on the one hand questions regarding conduct of the courts themselves, and on the other hand conduct of Israeli media, which comply with such ludicrous conduct of the Israeli courts.
It should be noted that the Haifa Magistrate Court, like all other Israeli courts, which have been inspected to this date (including the Israeli Supreme Court [5-6]), today operates with no lawfully appointed Chief Clerk and refuses to certify its own records. [7] The Israeli courts themselves ruled in the past that a court, operating with no lawful office of the clerk, is an incompetent court.
Following is the translation of the April 13, 2014 Protocol, as published elsewhere. [1]
Translation of court transcript
[Seal of the State of Israel]
At the Magistrate's Court in Haifa
13 April 2013
Israel Police Central Unit vs. Kayyal (23318-04-14)
Before the honorable justice Dr. Zayed Falah
Petitioner: Police Central Unit Versus Suspect Majd Kayyal
Present
Attorney for the petitioner -- Warrant Officer Marcel Daman
Attorney for the suspect -- Adv. Aram Mahamid and Adv. Fadi Khouri
Suspect -- no appearance (he is brought into the court after the interrogation by the attorney for the suspect and the summaries)
Relatives of the suspect -- his father, brother and mother
Minutes
Attorney for the Petitioner
Restates the content of the petition. Presents the investigative file to the court for perusal. Presents secret material.
Attorney for the Petitioner, in response to questions from the attorney for the suspects:
Q: Are you informed about all the investigative actions taken to date:
A: No.
Q: Have you given the court all the investigative material that has already been collected?
A: Indeed.
Q: Does the material presented to the Court include investigative memoranda and investigative actions that have already been done?
A: Yes.
Q: Have you also conveyed all of the actions that are yet to be taken?
A: Yes.
Q: At what stage is the investigation?
A: The investigation is still at its very beginning. The suspect was only arrested yesterday. According to the material that was found, he is expected to be investigated a few more times and the full future plan is before the court. I cannot commit myself to the number of investigations because I am not an investigator.
Q: What is the suspect suspected of?
A: What appears in the warrant. Contact with a foreign agent, leaving the country unlawfully.
Q: Is there a version for the suspicions?
A: [it is] all before the court. I have not investigated him and I will not investigate him. It's all by the Security Service [Shabak].
Q: About the foreign agent crime - is it known who he is?
A: I cannot specify. It is all in the secret report.
Q: What are the circumstances of the contact with the agent?
A: It's indicated in the secret report. As to dates -- there is no exact date, everything is in the secret report.
Q: About the two suspicions -- are they related?
A: I think so.
Q: Did the contact with the foreign agent happen while he was carrying out the second offense?
A: The investigation is being performed by the security services. All the material is before the court, for perusal. I cannot specify beyond this.
Q: An order restraining a meeting with an attorney at 8. The arrest warrant was issued at 9:30. Explain the gap.
A: It's a technical computer transaction, [it took] until we took out the computer. He was arrested yesterday evening. He was apprehended at 19:50 hours. This restraining order is under the responsibility of the security entities.
Q: In the matter of the order -- did you explain the suspect that he is prohibited from meeting an attorney?
A: I did not review the content of the warning because the security service did the investigation. All the material is before the court and there is a secret report attached. The security services could not appear in court, and that is why I am here.
Q: Did he wish to give a message to his relatives?
A: I know that there was contact with his relatives. He was informed that he is under arrest. Beyond that I have no idea.
Q: Did you inform one of his relatives that he is restrained from contacting an attorney?
A: I have no answer about that. It is in the investigative material.
Q: Was the suspect investigated about one event or about several events?
A: All the material is before the court, all the actions taken from the moment he was arrested to this day. I cannot confirm the number of events.
Q: Can you confirm that the suspect cooperated in his interrogation and answered all the questions?
A: I have not reviewed what was investigated and asked. I was asked to come [here] for extension of the detention. The security services continue their investigation. All the material is before the court.
Q: How many investigative activities did you do yesterday?
A: A preliminary investigation and a continuation today. I don't know how many investigations were done yesterday. There was a preliminary investigation.
Q: Explain why you are asking for 15 days of detention.
A: These are serious offenses against the security of the state and there is material to be investigated.
Q: Are there details of all 15 days that require his continued detention, in the form of a work plan?
A: There are not specific details of each stage and what is done every day. The actions that are detailed could change, because they are dynamic. They cannot be done when he is discharged. The suspect was arrested at his home in Haifa.
Q: Was the search performed in one house or two?
A: The material is in the investigative file.
Q: Did you have a search warrant?
A: Yes. I know about the search warrant at the up-to-date address, which the Israel Police has. I know one address, [REDACTED] Street.
Q: Did you issue search warrants to two addresses?
A: I issued a search warrant for [REDACTED] Street, which is his address, as recorded in his personal ID card.
Q: Confirm that the suspect has no criminal record.
A: I did not examine his criminal record.
The attorney for the petitioner summarizes:
I repeat the petition. I ask that it be fully granted.
The attorney for the suspect summarizes:
This is a 23-year-old journalist, with no criminal record, who was apparently apprehended on the Israel/Jordan border. Since his arrest he has not been permitted to consult an attorney. No notice was given to his attorney and/or his family to visit him in his detention nor with regard to the prohibition on his meeting an attorney. As you know, and it is decided law, that prohibiting a meeting with an attorney is a gross violation of the suspect's basic rights. I ask the court to take this into account and examine how many actions are required when the suspect is under arrest. I ask that he be released immediately. Alternatively, that he be released under conditions. As another alternative, that the number of days required under detention be reduced.
The suspect is brought into the courtroom, his family and attorney leave the room.
The suspect:
I ask to be told the names of the attorneys and the court gave me their names. The court has explained to me about the prohibition from meeting attorneys until 14 April 2014, at midnight, and told me that the hearing was held in the presence of my attorneys, who asked the representative of the police questions. The court has explained to me that my father, mother and brother were present in the courtroom. I have nothing further to add.
Decision
I have before me a request to extend the suspect's detention for 15 days, due to suspicion of committing the crimes of contact with a foreign agent and unlawful travel to Arab countries.
I have reviewed the evidentiary material presented to me and have been persuaded that there is reasonable cause to suspect that the suspect has committed the crimes he is charged with. I have also been persuaded that there is the risk that if he is released he could disrupt the investigation and endanger public security.
I have perused the secret report prepared by the Shabak, which I have marked BM/1. This report includes background, investigative actions taken, and investigative actions that are still required, and I have been persuaded that the security entities must be permitted to complete their investigation fully, to come to the study of the truth.
I considered the possibility of releasing the suspect for an alternative form of custody and come to the conclusion that at this stage, there is no space for any alternative.
I have taken into account the fact that an order has been issued to prohibit meeting an attorney and I have also taken into account that the court must be permitted to oversee the investigative actions performed by the security entities, and for this reason I have decided to grant a number of detention days [than those] requested.
For this reason, I am extending the detention of the suspect until 22 April 2014, at 10 am.
I issue an order prohibiting publication with regard to all proceedings in this case until 22 April 2014 at 10:00 and the proceedings will be held in camera until that date.
These minutes constitute reference for the detention.
Handed down and informed today, 13 Nissan 5774, 13 April 2014, in the presence of those persons present.
[signature]
Dr. Zayed Falah, Judge
[END]
____
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
OccupyTLV
____
* The Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations was incorporated into the 2010 Periodic Review Report regarding Human Rights in the United States, with the note: "corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California".
* The Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations was incorporated into the 2013 Periodic Review Report regarding Human Rights in Israel, with the note: "lack of integrity of the electronic records of the Supreme Court, the district courts and the detainees courts in Israel.
LINKS:
[1] 14-04-13 Decision by Judge Dr Zaid Fallah, in Israel Police v Majd Kayyal (23318-04-14), in the Haifa Magistrate Court
[2] 14-04-13 Israel places journalist in incommunicado detention_electronicintifada
[3] US State Department Daily Press Briefing: April 14, 2014
[4] 14-01-30 In re: RSZ (1829-06-10 and 25607-03-13) in the Haifa Magistrate Court -- Index of Records abd kubjs ti recirds
[5] 14-03-09 Israeli Supreme Court Presiding Justice Grunis refuses to explain the appointment of new "Chief Clerk" Idit Meloul! Grunis must resign!
[6] 14-01-03 ISRAEL: Large-scale Fraud in the Supreme Court's Office of the Clerk
[7] 14-04-13 Re RSZ (1829-06-10 and 25607-03-13) in the Haifa Magistrate Court -- Response to Presiding Judge Salame, in re - request for certification, appointment record of "Chief Clerk" Israel Hen
http://www.scribd.com/doc/217902531/
