The accuser's summaries
In their summaries, counsel for the accuser argued that the accuser met the burden of proof and proved beyond a reasonable doubt the offenses attributed to the defendants as described in the indictment. It was further argued that the totality of the existing evidence proves that defendants 1 and 2, together with the accomplice, Muhammad (against whom an indictment was filed in the case of the Serious Crimes Case 20157-08-19 State of Israel v. Muhammad Asaiwi, which was heard in this court before a panel headed by Vice-President Judge Y. Raz Levy), caused the death of Nissim Al-Sayed (hereinafter: "the deceased") intentionally, after planning or after an actual process of weighing and formulating a decision to kill him, while defendant 3 is assisting them. Counsel for the accuser further argued that after joint prior planning and preparations, the sequence of events was as follows: On June 14, 2019, defendants 1 and 2 drove with Muhammad in defendant 2's car to the Tulkarm area, in order to equip themselves with a Mazda vehicle, which would be used to murder the deceased. Defendants 1 and 2 then returned to Israeli territory through the Eliyahu crossing, while Muhammad returned with a Mazda vehicle through the Fitanim crossing; On 16 June 2019, defendant 1 and Muhammad drove in a Mazda from Lod to the village of Hura; On June 17, 2019, the day of the murder, all three defendants and Muhammad gathered at the Dor Alon Lakiya gas station; Subsequently, the group split as agreed, so that Defendants 2 and 3 waited for Defendant 1 and Muhammad at a meeting point on the outskirts of Hura, and the latter drove to Hura in a Mazda car and followed the car of the deceased and his cousin, with Defendant 1 driving the car; At the entrance to the bakery in Hura, Muhammad fired three pistol bullets into the deceased's body. From there, the two continued to the aforementioned meeting point, where the defendants and Muhammad set fire to the Mazda car, with the intention of preventing it and its contents from being used as evidence against them, and fled to the city of Lod. In addition, defendant 1 was in possession of a dangerous drug not for his own consumption.