Several years ago Nasrin Musrawa was convicted of soliciting her husband's murder. The Supreme Court of Justice is now deliberating her appeal. This is based on a discrepancy between the written testimony of the murderer who incriminated her and a cassette recording of how this testimony was obtained.

The prosecution claimed that the murderer had confessed that Nasrin promised to marry him if he murdered her husband. But the video cassette of the interrogation shows that most of the statements attributed to him had been made by the interrogators.

In 2002, the Knesset enacted a law requiring the police to film every interrogation of crimes punishable by 10 or more years in prison. However, the police have not implemented the law, claiming high costs and increased complaints of police violence.

	Advertisement

The Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee has recently approved the Public Security Ministry's request to postpone the law's implementation yet again. The committee decided that murder investigations would be filmed, but investigations of manslaughter would be filmed only in a year from now and investigations of crimes punishable by 15 and more years would be filmed as of 2009. As of 2010, investigations of crimes punishable by 10 or more years would be filmed as well, as the law stipulates.

"Sometimes the written confessions are not clear and entire days are wasted on what the defendant did or did not say," says attorney Rachel Toren, chair of the Bar Association's criminal forum.

"It's also important to know whether the confession was made immediately or after three hours of denials," she says.

In many cases a trial within a trial is held to determine a statement's admissibility. Filming or at least recording the interrogation could solve these problems.

Public Defense officials say it is vital to enforce the law and film interrogations. They cite the Nasrin Musrawa case as an example. Haitam Musrawa was murdered in Tira in November 2001. A few days later his wife Nasrin and his brother Assad were arrested as suspects. Assad confessed to the crime and incriminated Nasrin. His signed confession became an important piece of evidence in Nasrin's conviction for soliciting her husband's death.

"Nasrin made advances at me. I felt I loved her so much that I murdered my brother for her," he is heard saying. "I knew that after my brother died she would marry me. She pressured me to set something up, to kill Haitam," the admission statement says.

Nasrin's defense lawyer demanded to see the interrogation cassettes. They show the interrogators persuading Assad that Nasrin was the one who had pushed him to commit the murder. Most of the statements attributed to Assad had been uttered by his interrogators, not by him. At best he confirmed with a murmur.

In the cassette, the interrogator says: "She made a pass at me, I felt I loved her so much that I was even ready to murder my brother for her."

"I wasn't thinking at the time," replies Assad.

"But...so much that I murdered my brother for her," the interrogator says. "The prize...the reward is that she would live with you, right?" the interrogator insists.

"Yes," says Assad, "mmmmm," says the protocol.

The difference between a faltering "yes" and Musrawa's own account of his dependence on Nasrin is huge. It is the difference between soliciting to commit murder - a crime almost as severe as murder - and conspiring to commit a crime, which is less severe. The Be'er Sheva District Court convicted Nasrin for solicitation to murder and sentenced her to 16 years in prison.

Assad's questioning was filmed, because it was a murder investigation, which made it possible to compare the filmed version to the written one.

Hagit Lernau, deputy chief of the Israeli National Public Defender and Nasrin's attorney, is not blaming Assad for the differences between the written and filmed admission.

"The police gave him a moral way to shift the blame for murdering his brother, by saying that he had been pushed into it; it's only natural that he use it," she says.

The detectives have to turn hours of conversation into an admission. "Obviously they're going to do it their way. That's exactly the importance of the recordings," she says.

Some of the reasons for delaying the law are hard to understand. Justice Ministry and Public Security Ministry officials told the Law and Justice Committee that filming the interrogations would lead to an increase in the complaints of police brutality. This would require increasing the Internal Affairs' unit's budget, they said.

"What better reason to enforce the law immediately than the increase of complaints against the police?" asked the representative of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.

The opponents' main argument was financial. They estimated setting up the cameras at NIS 40 million and their daily operation at NIS 30 million annually.

Toren believes the films would save money and precious court time because they would spare many trials within trials of what took place in the interrogation rooms.

"There's an unholy alliance between those who don't want to spend money and those who don't want justice done," said MK Arieh Eldad.

The Public Security Ministry commented: "The ministry and police attribute great importance to documenting investigations and have been acting to implement them. The filming requires proper preparation including lighting, preventing outside noise, etc. An estimated addition of dozens of millions of shekels will also be required to implement the law."