On Sunday, March 3, Attorney Gaby Lasky filed an appeal on behalf of B’Tselem to the Military Advocate General (MAG) against the decision by the Military Advocate for Operational Matters not to indict anyone for shooting a rubber-coated metal bullet at Israeli peace activist Eran Cohen during a demonstration in Bil’in.
On 14 March 2008, during a demonstration against the Separation Barrier, an Israeli military officer fired a rubber-coated metal bullet from very close range at a demonstrator, Cohen, who was 18 at the time. The incident was filmed by two separate photographers, an Israeli woman and a Palestinian man. The footage clearly shows that Cohen was doing nothing that posed any danger whatsoever to the soldiers. The officer fired at Cohen from a distance of only a few meters, although the military prohibits the use of rubber-coated metal bullets at distances under fifty meters, because doing so may be lethal. Cohen was taken to Assaf Harofeh Medical Center in Israel, where the bullet was removed from his thigh.
A women is seen in front of an Israeli soldier during a demonstration marking 8 years to the on going struggle against the Separation Barrier, last week, in Bil’in on March 1, 2013 (Photo: Activestills)
On 1 January 2012, the Military Advocate for Operational Matters (MAOM) Corps notified B’Tselem that it was closing the case. B’Tselem sought to learn the reasons for this decision, but was rebuffed. In addition, on behalf of Cohen, B’Tselem requested to see all the investigatory material. B’Tselem received and examined the material it had been sent. Further to a protracted correspondence with the MAOM Corps to receive additional investigatory material and to learn the reasons for the decision to close the case, B’Tselem submitted its appeal.
In the appeal, Attorney Lasky emphasized that the investigatory material in the file, including the two videos filmed during the demonstration and conveyed by B’Tselem to the investigators, proves indisputably that the officer fired a rubber-coated metal bullet at Cohen at close range, in complete violation of open-fire regulations, injuring him in the leg. Hence, the decision to close the file is patently unjust and should be reversed. Moreover, Attorney Lasky noted that the investigation failed completely in examining the broader issues and implications of the case. The investigatory material made no mention of the question of permission having been granted for firing rubber-coated metal bullets or the necessity for firing such bullets at that particular demonstration; of the training of security forces in and their knowledge of open-fire regulations; or even of the fact that, contrary to regulations, the injured youth, Eran Cohen, was given no medical aid.
Also, the mother of a resident of the village of Bil’in who was killed by a tear-gas grenade fired at him by a soldier has petitioned this week the High Court of Justice. The petition demands that the Military Advocate General, Major-General Danny Efroni, be ordered to reach a decision in the case and prosecute the soldier who fired the grenade and all those bearing command responsibility for the killing of her son. In the petition, which was filed jointly with Bil’in Village Council, B’Tselem and Yesh Din, Subhiya Abu Rahmah demands an urgent hearing in view of the fact that almost four years have passed since her son was killed. The incident was documented in the film Five Broken Cameras, which was a candidate for the 2013 Oscar Academy Awards.
Bassem Abu Rahmah, age 30, was killed in April 2009 after he was struck in the chest by an extended-range tear gas grenade during a demonstration against the Separation Barrier in his home village of Bil’in. Three video segments filmed during the demonstration prove that Abu Rahmah was situated to the east of the fence, did not act violently, and did not endanger the soldiers in any way. The petitioners also attached an opinion prepared by experts from London and New York who have analyzed the films documenting the incident and determined that the grenade was aimed directly at Abu Rahmah. Accordingly, and given that the deceased did not pose any threat to the soldiers, the shooting constituted a criminal offense. Accordingly, the soldier who fired the grenade should be prosecuted and, depending on the results of the investigation, it is possible that his commanders should also be prosecuted. The video segments also show that other soldiers fired gas grenades directly at demonstrators during the protest, in the presence of senior officers and in complete contravention of the open-fire regulations.
Despite these findings, the previous Military Advocate General, Major-General Avichai Mandelblit, initially refused to instruct the Military Police Investigation Unit (MPIU) to open an investigation into the killing. He changed his mind only after a threat to petition the High Court of Justice and the publication of an expert opinion examining the filmed evidence which reached the unequivocal conclusion that the firing was aimed directly at Abu Rahmah. The MPIU opened an investigation in July 2010 and several additional investigations have since taken place, but no decision has been taken to prosecute any suspects or to close the file.
The demonstrations against the Separation Barrier in Bil’in began in 2005, when its construction began on the village’s lands. As far back as September 2007, the Israeli High Court of Justice ruled that the route of the barrier must be altered to reduce negative impact on the villagers, but the decision was implemented only in June 2011.
Related:
Appeal in case of officer injuring demonstrator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8FlhYriEbc&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS62nVKt7Hk&feature=player_embedded|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Sd9B1OVYNzg
