9. reywp pa ei pReir er t tryetyi ari erriRsptrrs Another fundamental right is for defendants to be able to understand and follow proceedings conducted against them. Article 12 of the Palestinian Constitution states that arrested or detained persons “[…] shall be promptly informed, in a language they understand, of the nature of the charges brought against them.” According to Article 264 of the CPC, when a defendant does not speak the Arabic language, the president of the court appoints a licensed interpreter who takes an oath to translate the statements conscientiously and honestly. The same article states that non-compliance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph entails the nullity of the procedure. ISTIQLAL monitored few cases where defendants did not speak Arabic. In the few cases, where an interpreter was needed, the hearing had to be adjourned in order to summon an interpreter, who was not readily available. This led to an unnecessary prolonging of proceedings. ISTIQLAL observed no cases where the right to an interpreter was violated. 10. Right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and to call witnesses in own defence Evidentiary proceedings lie at the heart of criminal trials. Examination of witnesses is the single most important evidentiary action in criminal proceedings before Palestinian Courts. In general, witnesses are heard separately one form another; if multiple witnesses are summoned for the same day, they need to wait for their turn outside of the courtroom, so that their testimony is not influenced by other witnesses. In some cases, though, ISTIQLAL monitors noticed that some witnesses were present while other witnesses delivered their testimony. Prosecution witnesses are first questioned by the public prosecutor, then the defence attorney and lastly by the court. In the vast majority of cases monitored, the defence made use of their right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. The prosecution very often exercised its right to cross-examine witnesses called by the defence. First Instance Courts almost always had questions for the witnesses, while Serious Crimes Court panels made use of this right in a lower number of cases (71,7% vs 94,6% of cases). Courts almost always ensured that witnesses had sufficient time to answer questions in detail and recount their knowledge of the events. Normally, courts did not influence them or prevent them from speaking. ISTIQLAL’s findings are displayed in Table 10. TABLE 10 Examination of witnesses by parties (% of cases) Witnesses examined by Prosecution Witnesses examined by defence Witnesses examined by the Court Witnesses given sufficient time Ramallah First Instance Court 98.0 98.0 96.0 98.0 Bethlehem First Instance Court 99.1 98.2 99.1 99.1 Hebron First Instance Court 78.5 85.9 87.2 96.0 Nablus First Instance Court 73.8 90.5 95.2 100.0 46