On August 12, 1999, a memorandum was sent by R.Retrial Haifa Youth regarding the description of the detainee in Haifa. The memo states that the detainee is about 15 years old, 1.75 meters tall, has a healthy physique, short curly hair, wears a forehead hat, brown to light skin tone, is of Arab origin and speaks Hebrew and Arabic, the detainee has no hair in his ears, and has no Arabic accent.
- On August 15, 1999, the hearing on the request for the respondent's detention was held until the end of the The proceedings. Upon opening At the hearing, the respondent's counsel argued that no identification lineup had been held. The state's counsel replied that the court's order was not to conduct an identification lineup, but to conduct an examination of this possibility. Counsel for the State added that such an examination was conducted, that there are characteristics that distinguish between the detainee in Haifa and the Respondent, and that there is more than enough evidence linking the Respondent to the fact. The court decided that it would hear the argument in the motion on its merits, and at the conclusion of the parties' arguments, its position on the need to conduct an identification lineup would be determined.
At this point, the parties began to argue on the merits of the evidence. The state's counsel went on to explain to the court the material on the basis of which the indictment was filed. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent argued that some of what was stated in the memorandum was false, that some of the things that were recorded were not said at all in the interrogation tapes, and that it was an incrimination, while referring extensively to the difficulties that arise from the alleged evidence.
- The court's decision was given three days later, on August 18, 1999, and it is clear that the court examined the evidence in depth and breadth, and that the decision was difficult for it. The court opened its decision with the following words:
"The case that is the subject of this request for the respondent's detention until the end of the proceedings against him is such a difficult case that the need to establish in it the existence of a prima facie evidentiary basis for the matter of the arrest becomes an almost impossible task, in the sense of woe to me from my creator and woe to my troubles. Woe to me, if the respondent is arrested without him being the one who committed the criminal act attributed to him in the indictment that is the subject of this motion. And woe to me, if he is not arrested, if in fact he is responsible for the scoundrel."