The special military court on the Kirya base on Thursday convicted Lt. Col. Omri Borberg, a former commander of Battalion 71 in the Armored Corps, for attempted threats and his soldier, Staff Sgt. (res.) Leonardo Corea, for illegal use of a weapon. Both of them were also convicted for inappropriate behavior.

Corea fired from close range at anti-fence protestor Ashraf Ibrahim Abu Rahma as he was blindfolded and bound and hit close to his shoe.

The convictions will be listed in their criminal records.

What started as a routine protest of a few dozen Palestinians and left-wing activists in the West Bank village of Naalin on July 7, 2008 turned into one of the IDF's most significant command and legal matters in recent years.

The incident, which was caught on camera, resulted in a case with the military investigation police, exchanges of blame between the commander and his soldier, and ended in the dismissal of Lt. Col. Borberg from his post as battalion commander and a relatively light indictment of unfit behavior against Borberg and Corea.

However, human rights groups then petitioned the High Court with a demand that the indictments be stiffened to include criminal counts. In a rare move, the court notified the Military Prosecution that the indictment does not fit the incident. Thus, in November of last year, it was decided that Borberg, the battalion commander, then serving as a headquarters commander at the center for land training, would be indicted for making threats.

In their decision, which fell in line with the High Court's stance on the matter, the military court's judges ruled, "The battalion commander's actions, despite his desire to protect security interests, against a person who presents no danger, cannot be considered a legal action."

Corea, who had since completed his military service, was indicted for illegal use of his weapon.

Over the past two months, a trial was held during which Abu Rahma was brought in to testify.

Following the conviction, their sentences are now slated to be set. It seems, as of now, that Burberg's military career will be significantly damaged as a result.

A military official familiar with the case believes that it would have been best to be done with the case long ago. "No doubt there was a bad incident here, but, on the other hand, you can't discuss and keep talking about it for so long. You need to know when to stop and not send a message to commanders and soldiers that when they make a mistake it will take years for the matter to be decided," he said.

'They must sit in jail for a long time'

Abu Rahma heard the news of the conviction three days after the Military Prosecution reversed its decision not to investigate the death of his brother by a tear gas canister. In a conversation with Ynet, he expressed his hope that the two soldiers would be served with heavy sentences.

"They need to sit many years in prison for what they did. I still don't understand the meaning of the decision and its implications, but it is certain that the punishment of the two must be severe," said Abu Rahma.

He said that he has not been able to forget the incident. "It was frightening. What they did to an innocent person. I would expect that in such a trial they would ask me to be present and for the authorities to arrange an entry visa for me to sit in the courthouse if they wanted a real trial," Abu Rahma.

Abu Rahma, it should be noted, did testify during the trial. He is continuing his civil suit against Burberg and Corea.

According to him, many similar incidents take place all the time in the territories. "The court must believe that such incidents happen even if they are not videotaped because this is the occupation and this is what the soldiers do to the Palestinians all the time. I hope the two are punished like they should be," Abu Rahma said.

Rights organization B'Tselem, whose camera document the incident, said in response to the verdict: "The court's decision sends an important message to the soldiers and officers that the body and dignity of Palestinian detainees is not without consequence. The decision bolsters the message sent by the High Court that the previous indictment of unfit behavior was entirely unfit itself."