Palestinian detainees: no security in injustice

7/31/2019 Palestinian detainees: no security in injustice

1/24

P a l e s t i n i a nd e t a i n e e s :no security in injustice

September 2012


2/24

C O N T E N T S

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

We would like to thank the following for their help,hard work and contributions, without which thisreport would not have been possible:

Graham Bambrough, Seph Brown, AlexandraCulliford, Sarah Hibbin, Gerard Horton, John

Introduction

Overview

Administrative Detention

Torture & Ill-treatment

Child Detainees

Palestinian Jails

Conclusions

Endnotes

1

3

5

8

11

15

17

20

Since its establishment in 1967, Caabu has takenon a strong political, educational and media role. Across-party organisation, with Chairs from all themain political par ties, Caabu works to advance Arab-British relations through its support for internationallaw, human rights and democracy. Caabu has over90 British Parliamentary members and providesSecretariat services for the Britain-Palestine All-Party Parliamentary Group, as well as the Jordanand Qatar APPGs. Caabu has organised over fortyfive delegations to the Middle East since 1997.

www.caabu.org

@ Caabu

All facts and statistics were accurate and

checked at the time of publication.

McHugo, Kate Meekings, Grace Nicholls, Martin Short

& Michal Vexler.


3/24

The clanking of leg irons on a 13-year-old Palestinianboy as he entered the courtroom is a sound I willnever forget. It was Kafkaesque; as if this boy couldendanger anyone in the middle of an Israeli militarybase. What a Caabu delegation of British politicianswitnessed in the courtroom at Ofer was a mockeryof law and process worthy of the term kangaroo.The children had so little faith in the proceedingsthat all they wanted to do was to see their parentsand hear their news for the first time in weeks.

These scenes are not unusual. What this report

outlines is the way in which entire generations ofPalestinians have had to experience the humiliationand degradation of the Israeli military justice system,one of the most oppressive tools of the 45-year-old Israeli occupation. The unfairness of this systemgained greater prominence in 2012 following hungerstrikes by Palestinians in Israeli detention centres. Forthese reasons, Caabu has chosen to highlight thisissue by taking seven delegations of Parliamentariansto visit military courts and detainees families sinceNovember 2010. But Palestinians also suffer at thehands of their own fledgling justice system. Theweakness of due process and the ill-treatment

highlighted in this report illustrate the need formore detailed monitoring and analysis in this area.

It is much easier to justify extreme measures including violence against people whom we donot see as human. This applies especially to the

I N T R O D U C T I O N

I do not believe this process of humiliation represents justice. Ibelieve that the way in which these young people are treated isin itself an obstacle to the achievement by Israel of a peaceful

relationship with the Palestinian people.

Lord Alf Dubs, speaking about the trial of children in Ofer militarycourt, which he visited as part of a Caabu delegation in April 2011.

Israel-Palestine conflict: why should a Palestiniansuicide bomber have any qualms about walkinginto a pizza parlour and blowing up Israeli men,women and children if he believes Jews are thebrothers of apes and pigs?1 Similarly, why shouldan Israeli soldier feel any guilt over the bloodlettingof Operation Cast Lead if he believes Palestiniansare cockroaches?2

Caabu believes that it is vital for Israelis andPalestinians to discover their common humanity ifthere is to be an end to conflict. While the release

of Israeli Sergeant Gilad Shalit in October 2011garnered international attention, little regard wasgiven to the more than one thousand Palestiniansfreed in the exchange, or the almost 4,500 morewho remain imprisoned, many of them withoutcharge. Shalits plight gained so much sympathybecause, as the BBC put it, he was the kid nextdoor3 identifiable and recognisable in hisinnocence and humanity.

The aim of this report therefore is to give an identityto the thousands of faceless Palestinian prisoners, inthe hope that humanising them will make it harder

to justify their unnecessar y suffering. Ultimately thismust be part of a broader resolution of the conflict.

CHRIS DOYLEDirector

1


4/24

1 2

Haifa

Nazareth

Jenin

NablusTulkarem

Ramallah

HebronGaza

Tel Aviv

Rafah Beersheba

JerusalemBethlehem

Acre

LEBANON SYRIA

JORDAN

EGYPT

Urban Centre

KEY

Detention Facility

Prison

1 Kishon2 Damon3 Gilboa / Shatta4 Megiddo5 Salem6 Hadarim / HaSharon7 Huwwara8 Ayalon / Nitzan / Neve

Tirza / Ramleh PrisonMedical Centre

9 Ofer10 Shikma11 Gush Etzion12 Ohalei Keidar13 Eshel14 Ketziot15 Nafha / Ramon

ISRAEL

OccupiedGolanHeights

4

6

8

9

10

11

1213

14

15

7

53

Map.1Prisons and Detention Centres in Israel and theOccupied Palestinian Territory

Source: base-map acquired from Addameer - PrisonerSupport and Human Rights Association


5/24

Few Palestinianfamilies have neverhad a member in [an

Israeli] jail.

BBC 2011

O V E R V I E W

Since 1967 Israel has maintained a militaryoccupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Detentionand imprisonment have formed a large part ofthat regime: the Palestinian Centre for HumanRights (PCHR) estimates that, since the start ofthe occupat ion in 1967, over 760,000 Palestin ianshave been detained.4 The United Nations offer amore conservative estimate of around 726,000.5

The sheer scale of the Palestinian prisoner issue istherefore str iking.

At the end of April 2012, there were 4,424Palestinians held in Israeli jails, 308 of whom wereheld in administrative detention imprisonmentwithout charge or trial. It is wor th noting that thetotal figure is relatively low, in par ticular becauseof the release of over 1000 prisoners in late 2011.Of those in administrative detention in April2012, 24 were members of the democraticallyelected Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC). An

additional three members of the PLC were inprison, serving sentences.

The prisoners plight is characterised by a lack ofdue process and abuse of international law. Humanrights groups report violations of the rights toliberty, dignity and freedom from tor ture and abuse,as enshrined in the International Covenant on Civiland Political Rights, to which Israel is a State Party.Israels treatment of prisoners also contravenesmultiple articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention,such as those prohibiting transfer across borders.The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI)

states that in the Occupied Territories, the violationof the rights of suspects, arrestees, and prisonersoccurs on a massive scale, at every stage of thecriminal process.6

In addition, the treatment of prisoners in PalestinianAuthority (PA) and Hamas jails is a major causefor concern. Human rights organisations havedocumented severe abuses in both the West Bankand Gaza. The inter-factional violence of June 2007and the subsequent split between Hamas-controlledGaza and the Fatah-dominated West Bank have

contributed to the situations deterioration andled to a rise in politically-motivated arrests in bothparts of the Occupied Territory.

Two judicial processes for two peoples

In the West Bank an Israeli settler who is arrestedwill face a civilian court and is afforded the rightsenshrined in Israeli law. A Palestinian faces a militarycourt with military judges.

Martial law is a far harsher legal system. The

period that an individual spends in detentionprior to his/her trial differs significantly dependingon the system. While an Israel i settler must bebrought before a judge within 24 hours of arrest, aPalestinian can be held for up to eight days beforea cour t appearance. ACRI notes that, The securitylegislation operative in the territories establishes aperiod of arrest that is excessive and inconsistentwith the obligation to respect the individuals right including a suspects right to freedom fromincarceration. The extended periods of arrestimposed on Palestinian residents harm their most

basic rights: the right to liberty, to due process, tohuman dignity, and to equality.7

Sentencing under Israeli military law is far moresevere than under Israeli civil law. AmnestyInternational records that, on 21 January 2001, Israelisettler Nahum Korman was sentenced to six monthsof community service and issued with a $17,000 finefor beating to death an 11-year-old Palestinian child,Hilmi Shawasheh. The same day Suad Ghazal, a17-year-old Palestinian gir l, was sentenced to six anda half years for stabbing and injuring an Israeli settler.She was 15 at the time of her arrest and suffering

from psychological problems. Amnesty notes that,The sentence handed down to Nahum Kormansends out a powerful message that Israelis can killPalestinians with impunity.8

Moreover, to observe that the dual judicial system isunfair on Palestinians is to assume that both systemsare applied equally in all cases. While the UnitedNations Office for the Coordination of HumanitarianAffairs (OCHA) recorded a 32% increase in thenumber of Israeli settler attacks on Palestinians from2010 to 2011, and a 144% increase from 2009 to

2011, it also notes that over 90% of monitoredPalestinian complaints to Israeli police of violence bysettlers have been closed without indictment.9

3


6/24

500,000Israeli settlers

W

estBank

population

2,350,000Palestinians

C A S E S T U D Y: I S L A M J A B E R

Age: 13Date: 22 July 2011Location: Ras al-Amud, East Jerusalem

While playing football on the street with friends, acivilian car approached Jaber carrying plain-clothedIsraeli security forces wearing balaclavas. With theroad blocked off by a border police jeep, Jaberwas forced into the car (pictured) and taken to aninterrogation centre.

Accused of throwing stones, Jabers interrogationtook place without the presence of his parentsor a defence lawyer. Jaber alleges that, after herefused to sign a document written in Hebrew,he was beaten and hit with a club.10 All of theseactions breach Israels Youth Law.

East Jerusalem

Although East Jerusalem is part of the OccupiedPalestinian Territory, Israel de facto annexed the cityand land around it in 1967 (repeatedly condemnedby the UN Security Council see Resolutions 252,267, 271, 298, 465, 476 and 478) and Palestinianswith Jerusalem residency permits fall under Israeli

civil law. However, while this may seem equitablein principle, the application of the law again revealsmassive inequality in how Palestinians are treatedcompared to Israelis. For instance, Israels Youth Lawshould give Palestinian children all the protectionthat Israeli children receive, but it is often ignored.Furthermore, one of the fundamental principles ofthe law of occupation is that the legal system of theoccupier has no jurisdiction in the occupied territor y;to say otherwise is to suggest that the occupier hassovereign rights in occupied territory.

Gaza

Israel arrests Palestinians throughout the entirety ofthe West Bank, including Area A where the PA hassecurity control. In Gaza, the Hamas-lead authorityhas sole control over the judicial process. TheGazans who are in Israeli jails have therefore beenarrested in either the West Bank or Israel.

4


7/24

Administrative detentionwithout effective judicial reviewmight cause mistakes of factsor of discretion, which meansinfringement upon individual

liberty without justification.

Justices of theIsraeli Supreme Court

Administrative detention is the imprisonment of anindividual without charge , ordered by the executivebranch (in the case of the West Bank, the IDFmilitary commander), rather than the judiciary.11Under international law, administrative detentionis permissible in exceptional circumstances, forimperative reasons of security,12 for examplewhen a nations security or public order is

threatened.

In the Occupied Territory, an Israeli administrativedetention order can mean up to six monthsimprisonment without charge or trial and thepossibility of the orders renewal at the end ofthe term. Palestinian administrative detainees canin theory be held indefinitely, without ever facingtrial or, in many cases, learning the reasons for theirdetention. Of the 308 Palestinians in administrativedetention in April 2012, one had been imprisonedwithout charge for over five years.13 Seventeen

others had been incarcerated for between two andfour years.14

The high number of Palestinians imprisoned withoutcharge or trial implies that administrative detentionis used by Israel as a quick and easy alternative tocriminal proceedings in cases where the authoritieshave insufficient evidence to secure a conviction, orwhere they do not wish to reveal the evidence theyhave. This use of administrative detention rendersit a punitive rather than preventive measure, incontravention of the way it is provided for underinternational law.

A D M I N I S T R A T I V E

D E T E N T I O N

Israeli officials often argue that all administrativedetainees have the right to appeal, even to theSupreme Court of Israel. From 2000 to 2010, only282 appeals against administrative detention ordersreached the Supreme Court. However, all of theappeals were rejected, while 70% of the cases heardby the court resulted in very short (one to sixlines) and laconic judgements.15

According to Shiri Krebs of Stanford Law School,the use of secret evidence and ex parte proceedings(that is, in the absence of the defendant and thedefence counsel) makes success highly unlikely:

First, the Court relies on one-sidedinformation, and it is almost impossible forthe detainee to disprove the states allegationsagainst him (or her); second, the secretevidence creates a dynamic of trust betweenthe court and the state representatives, which

makes it harder to the Court to reject thesecret evidence or disagree with the staterepresentatives on their significance.16

Krebs concludes that the Court systematicallyavoids issuing release orders, and demonstratesminimal intervention with regard to the assessmentof the secret evidence.17

Both the UN Committee Against Torture and theUN Human Rights Committee have criticised theway Israel uses administrative detention orders andcalled on it to review its use.18

5


8/24

On 16 February 2012, at the age of 29, HanaShalabi was taken into administrative detentionby the Israeli authorities. Only four monthsearlier she had been released as part of the2011 prisoner exchange, following 25 monthsheld without charge. Once in custody, Shalabiimmediately began a hunger strike, inspired byKhader Adnan, which she said would not enduntil she was freed.

On 7 March, an Israeli judge postponed makinga decision on Shalabis detention, during a courthearing in which members of her legal team wereasked to leave the courtroom and her fatherwas refused permission to see her, even from adistance.

Shalabis time in prison was brought to an endafter 43 days of hunger strike when a deal wasbrokered, under which she was transferred toGaza. Although no longer confined to a cell, this

agreement means that Shalabi must stay in Gazafor three years before she may be allowed toreturn to her home in the West Bank.

In December 2011, Khader Adnan, a Palestinianunder administrative detention, began a hungerstrike. It was the 33-year-olds ninth periodof detention. He was given a four monthadministrative detention order on 8 January 2012,after being hospitalised on 30 December. Adnansappeal against his detention without trial wasrejected on 13 February by the Israeli authoritieson the grounds that the initial penalty based

on secret evidence was balanced. On 21February, after 66 days of refusing food, the Israelijustice ministry announced that Adnan would endhis hunger strike, after an agreement was reachedto release him at the end of his administrativedetention order in April.

Khader Adnans case highlights the misuse ofadministrative detention by Israel. Internationallaw is unequivocal: administrative detention ispermissible only in exceptional circumstances, incases where national security is threatened. The

agreement to release Khader Adnan, but only afterhe serves out his order, is a clear admission by theIsraeli authorities that he posed no threat to theirnational security. His detention was arbitrary: if hetruly was a security risk the Israeli authorities wouldnot have agreed to release him. This case showshow administrative detention is used to punishPalestinians for political reasons, rather than toprevent crimes. The fact that a deal was reachedthat required Adnan to remain in prison until hisorder expires shows that Israel was not willing to seta precedent of releasing administrative detainees.

This is further evidenced in the Krebs study ofappeals against administrative detention in theSupreme Court. Noting the high withdrawal ratebefore and after the hearings (55% from 2000-2010), Krebs explains that this occurs due to thebargaining in the shadow of the Court, wheresettlements are made to release a detainee afterhis or her order is served. A defence lawyer toldKrebs that if a settlement is agreed:

To issue only one more detention order,or even to release him at the end of thecurrent detention order, it means that the

case is weak, and therefore the detaineeshould have been released immediately.

6

KHADER

ADNAN

C A S E S T U D Y

HANA

SHALAB I

C A S E S T U D Y


9/24

Administrative detention of PalestinianLegislative Council members

Of the 308 Palestinians in administrative detentionin April 2012, 24 were members of the PalestinianLegislative Council (PLC). An additional threemembers of the PLC were in Israeli custody, butnot in administrative detention. That is to say, 18%of the PLCs 132 members were in detention inApril 2012; in Britain, this would be the equivalentof 130 MPs. At points in 2009, nearly one third ofall members of the PLC were in Israeli custody,19rendering it impossible for the PLC to convene.

The targeting of PLC members implies that Israelsmotivations for detention are political, aimed atpreventing Palestinian political institutions fromfunctioning. On 26 September 2005, in the run-up to the January 2006 elections, 450 members

of Hamas were detained, most of whom wereinvolved in campaigning for the elections or werecandidates.20 Some were released on the day of theelection and others just before or after. In responseto the capture of Gilad Shalit in Gaza in June 2006,eight ministers and 26 members of the PLC weredetained in the West Bank and kept in custody forone to two months.

Legal issues surrounding administrativedetention

There are numerous issues surrounding Israelsapplication of administrative detention, beyondits apparent political motivations and howcommonplace recourse to it has become:

Evidence against Palestinian administrativedetainees is almost always classified, meaningthat they are unable to make an effective appealagainst their detention.Prisoners are rarely informed, in their ownlanguage, of the reason for their detention. This isa source of psychological stress for the detainees,and also prevents them from making an effective

appeal against their detention.Administrative prisoners are regularly held inIsrael, even though the transfer of detainees outof occupied territory is forbidden under articles49 and 76 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Hunger strikes

Inspired by Khader Adnan and Hana Shalabi, over1500 Palestinians in Israeli jails began a mass hungerstrike on 17 April 2012. They were protesting Israelsuse of solitary confinement, the denial of family visits

and the widespread use of administrative detention.22

Egyptian-brokered talks between the hunger strikersand the Israeli authorities reached a deal on 14 May

C A S E S T U DY :

B A S I MA H M E DM U S AZ A R I R

Occupation: Member of the PalestinianLegislative Council,Independent

Date of arrest: 1 January 2009

Number ofadministrativedetention order

renewals:

Three

Date of release: 30 December 2010

Zarir was arrested at his home in the early hoursof 1 January 2009.21 During the arrest his eldestson was beaten and other members of his familywere interrogated. After being taken to Etziondetention centre, Zarir was transferred to Ofer,where he was placed under an administrativedetention order and kept for two months. Hewas then transferred to Ketziot prison in Israel,

in violation of article 76 of the Fourth GenevaConvention. When his six month administrativedetention order came to an end in July 2009, itwas renewed and Zarir remained in prison untilDecember 2010.

Since 1993, Zarir has been arrested and detainedfive times. On four occasions he was nevercharged; on one he was charged with membershipof an illegal party but was acquitted.

2012, which saw an end to solitary confinement for19 prisoners (in one case, after 13 years) and anend to a ban on family visits from Gaza (broughtin following Shalits capture in June 2006). Israel

also undertook either to release prisoners currentlyin administrative detention at the end of theirorder, or charge them. However, evidence againstadministrative detainees will remain secret.

7


10/24

T O R T U R E &

I L L - T R E A T M E N T

The difference between torture and cruel,inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment(ill-treatment) lies in the severity of pain and inthe intent behind the act. Ill-treatment is used bythe International Committee of the Red Cross torefer to significant suffering or pain that is inflictedwithout any specific purpose. Human rights groupshave been reporting Israeli use of torture and ill-

treatment since the start of the occupation. Bothtorture and ill-treatment are absolutely prohibitedunder international law.

Israeli human rights organisations, BTselem andHaMoked interviewed 121 West Bank Palestinianswho had been arrested and interrogated over allegedsecurity offences at the Shin Bet interrogation facilityin Petah Tikva, Israel, in 2009.23 The testimonieswere gathered from interviews with detainees andhelp to build a picture of the sorts of techniquesand conditions prevalent at the facility. It is this data

that is used in this section.

Arrest and transport to the facil ity

Many of the detainees reported that they werearrested in the early hours of the morning, whilethey were asleep. When arrest occurs late at night,most subjects experience intense feelings of shock,insecurity, and psychological stress and for the mostpart have great difficulty adjusting to the situation.24Night-time arrests disorientate the detainees, makingthem psychologically vulnerable even before they

reach the interrogation facility.

30% of the 121 detainees interviewed reported beingsubjected to physical violence during their arrest.22% reported that their house was damaged duringthe arrest. Not a single detainee was told to bringclothes, a toothbrush, or other items that they wouldneed during their detention. The eighteen childreninterviewed by BTselem and HaMoked experiencedthe same treatment as those over the age of 18.

All the detainees were handcuffed and blindfolded

when they were taken from their homes, with 27(22%) of them reporting loss of sensation, severepain, swelling, wounds and scarring as a result ofthe handcuffs.

Article 1 of the UnitedNations Convention againstTorture:

...any act by whichsevere pain or suffering,

whether physical or mental,is intentionally inflicted ona person for such purposesas obtaining from him ora third person informationor a confession, punishinghim for an act he or a thirdperson has committedor is suspected of having

committed, or intimidatingor coercing him or a thirdperson, or for any reasonbased on discrimination ofany kind, when such pain orsuffering is inflicted by or at

the instigation of or with theconsent or acquiescence of apublic official or other personacting in an official capacity.

8


11/24

Conditions in the interrogation facil ity

When detainees reached the Petah Tikva detentionfacility, they were transferred to cells which, althoughvarying in size depending on the number ofoccupants, were only large enough to accommodatea mattress for each occupant and a squat toilet.Detainees estimated the size of the smallest cells

to be 1.5x2m. The cells had no windows and werelit 24 hours a day by a bright, artificial light. Thewalls were too rough to lean against, so movementwas very restricted. Not a single detainee wastaken to an exercise yard at any point during thedetention. 78% of those interviewed were held intotal isolation for part of their detention. Solitaryconfinement and stimuli deprivation such as thismake a detainee vulnerable by increasing his stressand anxiety and making the presence of anotherperson even an interrogator a welcome relief,increasing the chances of compliance.

Hygiene conditions in the cells were consistentlydescribed as poor, with many detainees statingthat they were not provided with such basic itemsas toilet roll, soap or a toothbrush. 29% of thoseinterviewed said that they were denied access toshowers for part of their detention. Two-thirds ofthe detainees recorded that food was poor to thepoint of being unidentifiable. When they were latertransferred to other detention facilities they receivedbetter quality food, implying that a consciousdecision has been made not to provide inmates atinterrogation facilities with adequate food.

Interrogation

Whilst in the interrogation room detainees wereforced to sit, some with their legs shackled and themajority with their hands cuffed, on a metal chairfor the duration of the questioning (which could lastfrom as little as 15 minutes to over 24 hours). Theirmovement was thus greatly restricted, frequentlycausing numbness and pain.

Sixty eight (56%) of the detainees interviewed byBTselem and HaMoked were threatened by theirinterrogators with solitary confinement, beatings,sexual assault, indefinite administrative detention and

As a prominent and popular Fatah leader fromthe West Bank, Marwan Barghouti is seen asa possible successor to Mahmoud Abbas asPresident of the Palestinian Authority. However,he has been imprisoned in Israel (in violationof the Fourth Geneva Convention) since 2002.Barghouti is currently serving five life sentences inrelation to a bombing that killed four Israelis and

a Greek monk. His lawyers insisted that he wasmerely a political leader.

Barghoutis trial in 2004 followed two years ofsolitary confinement. In October 2011, UN SpecialRapporteur on Torture, Juan Mndez, called onmembers of the UN to ban solitary confinementin all but the most exceptional of circumstances,saying that the severe mental distress it causesmeans it could amount to torture.

After calling for a new wave of Palestinian peaceful

resistance and the severing of all ties with Israelin March 2012, Barghouti was placed in solitaryconfinement for a week and denied visitors fortwo months, as well as access to the prisonerscanteen for one month. According to his wife,Barghouti has been in solitary confinement 21times, including one period of four consecutiveyears. Solitary confinement has been used inBarghoutis case as a political punishment, becauseof his call for popular resistance.

C A S E S T U DY :

M A R W A NB A R G H O U T I

military interrogation (understood to mean torture).Two detainees were threatened with electricshocks. 36% reported receiving threats againstfamily members. Many detainees were deprived ofsleep, including 13 (11%) who were denied sleep for

over 24 hours. The report uncovered three violentinterrogation techniques that were experienced by9% of detainees: beatings, sharp twisting of thehead and sudden pulling of the body.

9


12/24

Conclusion

The findings of the BTselem and HaMoked reportindicate that a number of techniques were usedsystematically by Shin Bet operatives at the PetahTikva interrogation facility. These were designed todisorientate the detainees and cause anxiety throughsensory deprivation; to weaken the detainees

through depriving them of adequate sleep and food,severely restricting their movement; and to coercethe detainees through violence or the threat ofviolence. Such techniques constitute ill-treatmentand abuse. Although they may not necessarily berepresentative of the treatment of all Palestinians inIsraeli facilities, their use in the cases outlined aboveis of great concern.

In 1999, the Israeli Supreme Court outlawed many but not all of the interrogation techniques thathad been prevalent up to that point. The Public

Committee Against Torture in Israel estimates that,prior to the 1999 ruling, almost all interrogatees...were the victims of at least one form of tortureduring their interrogation.28 Although some ofthese interrogation techniques are no longer inuse, BTselem and HaMokeds report indicatesthat physical coercion is still employed, meaningthat Palestinian detainees are still subjected to ill-treatment and, in some cases, torture .

C A S E S T U DY : AY M A N H A M I D A

In December 2011, a Palestinian detainee wasacquitted after a military court in the West Bankfound that his Shin Bet interrogators had usedphysical and psychological abuse and threatsagainst his family to obtain a confession. AymanHamida was accused of 17 offences, including a

shooting in 2009 (for which he was convictedbased on the evidence of a co-conspirator). Theother charges rested on a confession obtainedduring Hamidas 40-day interrogation.

During his trial, Hamida asked to retract thisconfession. In testimony to the court, he claimedthat during his 40-day interrogation his brotherwas brought in for questioning to increasethe pressure on him, that his interrogatorsthreatened to bring in his sister and that he wasthreatened with administrative detention. He

also claimed that he was beaten, choked, spat on,and deprived of food and clothing. One of thejudges in the case wrote, The testimony of theShin Bet investigators led me to conclude that theinvestigation - its pace, the things said, the directcontact with the defendants family, the veiledthreat of administrative detention in the future -deprived the defendant of free will.25

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz noted, Acquittalin such circumstances is rare; Israeli militarycourts usually accept the testimony of Shin Betsecurity service agents, even in cases where no

one disputes that confessions were obtained afterthe suspects were beaten.26 The 2010 AnnualReport of Israels Military Courts showed that99.74% of all cases in the military courts end inconviction.27

10


13/24

C H I L D D E T A I N E E S

Approximately 500-700 Palestinian children areprosecuted every year in Israeli military cour ts afterbeing arrested, detained and interrogated by Israeliforces. Since 2000, more than 7,000 children havebeen held and prosecuted.29

At the end of April 2012, there were 218 Palestinianchildren in Israeli custody, of whom 33 were under

the age of 16.30 This figure is lower than it has beenin recent years for example, in April 2009 therewere 380 Palestinian children in Israeli custody.However, since the prisoner swap in December2011, in which 55 children were released, there hasbeen a 63% increase in the number of children indetention (as of April 2012).

In September 2011, the Israeli military commanderin the West Bank issued Military Order 1676,which purported to raise the age of majority forPalestinians from 16 to 18. This means under-18s

must be tried in juvenile courts. This finally broughtIsraeli law in the Occupied Territory partially in linewith the international standard. However, the orderdoes not apply to sentencing and so 16 and 17-year-old Palestinians are still sentenced as adults. MilitaryOrder 1676 also requires that a police officer informthe childs parents of his detention. However, since itis the Israeli army that conducts arrests in the WestBank, and many Palestinian children go for hours,sometimes days, before being handed to the police,this provision has had little impact.

Caabu is grateful to Defence for Children International Palestine Section for the case studies used here.

Arrest, transfer and interrogation

Children are taken to military detention centresfor interrogation, often outside of the OccupiedPalestinian Territory, in contravention of articles 49and 76 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The familyis rarely informed of the childs location and mayonly find this out once the child appears in court

or via contact with the International Committee ofthe Red Cross. Once in detention children are heldfor up to eight days without being brought before ajudge. Some are held in solitar y confinement.

Interviews take the form of military-styleinterrogations and despite UN demands to endthe practice without video recording. Lawyers andfamily members are not present and it is commonfor the child only to see his/her legal representativefor the first time inside the military court itself. Theforms of abuse most commonly reported during

detention include sleep deprivation, beatings, slappingand kicking and denial of food and water, prolongedperiods in uncomfortable positions, exposure toextreme heat or cold and denial of access to toiletsand washing facilities

The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel,Adalah and DCI-Palestine report that abuseis widespread. Out of a sample of 311 swornaffidavits collected by DCI lawyers from childrenbetween 2008 and 2012, 90% of the childrenreported being blindfolded during their arrest andtransport to a military centre , 75% repor ted being

subjected to physical violence, 57% repor ted beingthreatened, 29% were forced to sign confessionsor shown documents written in Hebrew, alanguage few understand, and 12% were held insolitary confinement.31

Between 2001 and 2010, over 645 complaints werefiled against Israeli Security Agency interrogators foralleged ill-treatment and torture, mostly of adults. Todate, there have been no criminal investigations.32

Plastichandcuffs

used todetain

Palestiniansacross the

West BankSource:

BTselem

CheckpointsMonitors Team

11


14/24

Name: Karam D.

Date of incident: 22 September 2010

Age: 13

Location: Hebron,

occupied West Bank

Accusation: Throwing stones

My house is only 100 metres away from thesettlement of Kirya Arba, and settlers walkby our house every day, says Karam. On 22September 2010, at around midday, Karam waswalking home from school. Suddenly, two Israelisoldiers grabbed me. Karam was dragged 60metres by the soldiers and was then punched

and slapped. I was scared and crying. I didntknow what they would do to me. The soldiersaccused Karam of throwing stones at a settlercar, which he denies, and they continued to beathim for about five minutes.

Shortly afterwards, Karams hands were tiedin front of him with plastic ties and he wasblindfolded. He was then made to sit on theground against a wall for two hours. A shorttime later Karam arrived at a police station forinterrogation. I was made to sit on a woodenseat in front of the table. He [the interrogator]

sat behind the table. Why do you throw stones?he asked. I didnt, I said. Yes you did, you threwstones at a settlers car, he said. No I didnt, I saidonce again. He then started shouting at me: Liar,he shouted. Im not a liar, I said.

Over the course of the next week, Karam wastaken to Ofer Military Court on three separateoccasions before being released on a surety of2,000 shekels (US $500) on 28 September 2010.Karams father says the court also imposed anadditional condition of putting Karam under

home arrest at his uncles house. Karam is notallowed to go to school during the home arrest.

C A S E S T U DY :

K A R A M

Name: Ahmad F.

Date of incident: 6 July 2011

Age: 15

Location: Iraq Burin village,

occupied West Bank

Accusation: Throwing stones

At around 2am, 15-year-old Ahmad was up latesocialising with family members when the Israeliarmy came to arrest him.

Ahmad was transported to Huwwarainterrogation centre on the outskirts of Nablus.He was left outside from about 5am until 3pm

the following day. He was not brought any food.Whilst waiting outside, Ahmad reports beingverbally abused and told: We want you to dieout here. Whenever Ahmad tried to sleep asoldier would start shouting and kicking him tokeep him awake.

Whilst Ahmad was waiting outside some soldiersbrought a dog and Ahmad was pushed to theground. They brought the dogs food and putit on my head. I think it was a piece of bread,and the dog had to eat it off my head. His salivastarted drooling all over my head. I was so scared

my body started shaking because I thought hewas going to bite me. They saw me shaking andstarted laughing and making fun of me. Thenthey put another piece of bread on my trousersnear my genitals, so I tried to move away but hestarted barking. I was terrified.

Later that day Ahmad was taken to the policestation in Ariel settlement and interrogated. Theinterrogator removed my blindfold but kept metied, recalls Ahmad. The interrogator accusedme of throwing stones, but I denied it. The

following day Ahmad was placed inside anothervehicle and transferred to Megiddo prison insideIsrael, in violation of Article 76 of the FourthGeneva Convention.

C A S E S T U DY :

A H M A D

12


15/24

Sentencing

While stone-throwing is the most common chargeagainst Palestinian children, they are regularlyarrested indiscriminately and remanded in detentionwith little or no evidence. The military courtoften relies on soldiers testimonies and childrensconfessions frequently signed in Hebrew, a

language few understand, and commonly extractedby coercion to convict them. Confessions serve asthe primary evidence against the children when theyare prosecuted before the court. With no fair trialguarantees and the prospects of harsh sentences,33at least 90% of children plead guilty, regardlessof whether or not they actually committed theoffence.34 The system seems to be designed toencourage this. Children are swiftly sentenced tobetween two weeks and ten months imprisonmenton average for throwing stones, if they plead guilty.If they plead not guilty, however, they are generally

held on remand for extended periods before theirtrial will be heard, at which point they are likely stillto be convicted and sentenced to an even harshersentence. The granting of bail and trials that end inan acquittal are very rare.

Comparison of Israeli and Palestinianchildrens treatment

When considering Israels treatment of Palestinianchild detainees, it is useful to compare the processthey go through with the equivalent process for an

Israeli child. For example, if two children, one Israeli,one Palestinian, both residing in the West Bank, wereinvolved in a fight with each other, their experience

.yllacitamardreffiddluowmetsyslagelilearsIehtfoOne would go through the Israeli civilian juvenilejustice system, while the other would go throughthe military court system (see overleaf).

Israels actions in relation to the treatment of minors cuffing, shackling, physical abuse, denial of access tolegal representation, the widespread use of custodialsentences and detention inside Israel represent

serious breaches of the Four th Geneva Convention,the UN Convention Against Torture and the UNConvention on the Rights of the Child all of whichhave been ratified by Israel.

Table.1Common complaints and areas of concern, basedon 311 sworn affidavits collected by DCI betweenJanuary 2008 and Januar y 2012

# Common complaints

and areas of concernNum

berof

ca

ses

Percentageof

children

1 Hand ties 296 95%

2 Blindfolds 281 90%

3 Physical violence 234 75%

4 Detention inside Israelin violation of Article 76

196 63%

5 Arrested betweenmidnight and 5:00 am

188 60%

6 Confession duringinterrogation

180 58%

7 Threats 178 57%

8 Verbal abuse and/orhumiliation

169 54%

9 Strip searched 102 33%

10 Transferred on floor ofvehicle

98 32%

11 Signed/showndocuments written inHebrew

91 29%

12 Solitary confinement 38 12%

Source: DCI-Palestines April 2012 report, Bound,Blindfolded and Convicted: Children held in military

detention

13


16/24

infographic by Michal Vexler

14

12 hours 4 days

2 days 90 days

40 days 188 days

6 months 2 years

80% 13%

6.5% 90%


17/24

Human rights organisations have documented severeabuses in Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas jails,in both Area A of the West Bank (the approximately18% of the West Bank over which the PA has fullsecurity control) and Gaza, with Hamas and Fatahoften targeting each others members and activists.In both areas, there have been documented casesof detainees dying, apparently as a result of torture

eight in the West Bank between June 2007 andOctober 2010.35 In December 2011 alone, therewere eight complaints of torture or ill-treatmentin the West Bank and ten in Gaza, according tothe Independent Commission for Human Rights(ICHR), the official observer for human rights abusescommitted by the Palestinian authorities.36 For thesame month there were 31 complaints against theWest Bank security services on the grounds ofarbitrary detention or politically motivated arrest.The equivalent figure for Gaza was 22.37

Lack of due process

One of the key problems with the treatment ofprisoners in Area A of the West Bank and Gaza isa lack of due process. Human rights organisationsoperating in the West Bank have noted that arrestsfrequently take place without a warrant (501 reportedincidents in 2010)38 and without providing the familyof the detainee with any details of where their relativeis being taken. In 2010, the ICHR received 1,559complaints of arbitrary arrests. There have also beendocumented cases in which those conducting the

arrest were masked and refused to identify themselvesor provide any reason for the arrest. This occurredprimarily in the months after Hamas takeover ofthe Gaza Strip in June 2007, when the PalestinianAuthority was cracking down on suspected Hamasmembers in the West Bank.39 There are widespreadaccusations that Hamas and Fatah have arrested eachothers supporters for political purposes.

Detainees in the West Bank are frequently deniedaccess to a lawyer and are not brought before aprosecutor within 24 hours, as Palestinian law requires.

Human rights organisations have also documentedincidents in which a judge has reviewed a detaineescase and ordered that he or she be released, only forthe security forces to refuse to comply.40

In Gaza, there were 321 reported incidents ofarbitrary detention in 2010, 244 of which occurredwithout a warrant.41

Torture and ill-treatment

The ICHR logged 161 complaints of torture and ill-treatment in the West Bank in 2010.42 Most torturetook the form of forcing detainees to hold stresspositions for prolonged periods. This can causeexcruciating pain and internal injury, but leaves no

physical mark. Other methods of torture includekicking, punching, mock executions, sleep deprivationand beatings using sticks, plastic pipes and rubberhoses.43

In Gaza, the ICHR received 220 complaints oftorture in 2010. The most common forms of torturewere forcing detainees to hold stress positions,flogging, beatings with batons, kicking, punching,suspending detainees from the ceiling by their hands(tied behind their back), blindfolding detainees forextended periods, electric shocks and threats.44

Human Rights Watch has documented severalinstances of Palestinians dying in custody, in both theWest Bank and Gaza.45

P A L E S T I N I A N J A I L S

1,800

1,5001,559

West Bank

1,200

900

600

300

0

Complaints against Palestinian authoritiesfor arbitrary detention | 2010

15


18/24

Haitham Amr was a nurse at a hospital in Hebron,in the southern West Bank. He was arrestedby Palestinian security services in June 2009 onsuspicion of membership of Hamas, and takento the General Intelligence Service headquartersin Hebron. He died four days later ; his bodywas covered with bruises, including around thekidneys. He was the fourth person to die in

Palestinian custody in the West Bank that year.

46

In July 2010, five security officers were acquittedover Amrs death; the Palestinian military courtthat tried them cited lack of evidence. This wasin spite of an official autopsy report saying thatAmr had died as a result of torture and thetestimony of three detainees who had witnessedhis death.47

The death penaltyand summary execution

Palestinian law requires presidential approval beforethe death penalty can be imposed. Whilst in theWest Bank there have been no executions sinceJanuary 2005, when Mahmoud Abbas was elected, inthe Gaza Strip the case is different. Because Abbas

tenure was due to end in January 2009, the Ministryof the Inter ior in Gaza declared that Abbas no longerhad the authority either to approve or to stop theapplication of the death penalty. Consequently, fivedeath sentences were carried out in Gaza in 2010,whilst a further 15 were imposed. Of these 15,nine were imposed by military courts. Althoughthe death penalty is not illegal under internationalhuman rights law, most human rights groups see itas a gross violation of the right to life, and Article 6of the International Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights stipulates that it be used only for the most

serious crimes.

48

The large number of offencesfor which the death penalty is prescribed (17 inthe West Bank, 15 in Gaza and 42 according to thePalestine Liberation Organisations RevolutionaryPenal Code, which is applied by a system of militarycourts)49 suggests that its use is not restricted to themost grievous crimes.

There is a gap in research on prisoners in Palestinianjails, which makes it difficult to assess accurately thesituation. More monitoring is needed to ascertainexact numbers and details for analysis.

C A S E S T U DY :

H A I T H A MA M R

16


19/24

Prisoners and the peace process

In autumn 2011, after five years of negotiations,Hamas and Israel concluded a swap deal in Egyptthat led to the release of over 1,000 prisoners. On17 October, Sergeant Gilad Shalit crossed fromsouthern Gaza into Egypt, released by Hamas afterfive years of captivity. In return, 1,027 Palestinians in

Israeli jails were freed in a two-phased release.

Most of the international attention focused on thefate of Shalit, who had been captured in a cross-border raid in the summer of 2006 by fightersfrom Hamas. He had been held in Gaza, igniting aglobal campaign for his release backed by numerousWestern governments. In June 2011, the BritishEmbassy in Tel Aviv incorporated an image of thecaptured soldier into its Facebook logo, whilstForeign Office Minister Alistair Burt MP, recorded apersonal appeal for his release (right).

By contrast, throughout the process little attentionwas paid to the thousands of anonymous Palestinianmen, women and children held in Israeli jails, manyof whom are detained without charge and likeShalit held in solitary confinement, denied visitsfrom their families and subjected to ill-treatment, incontravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The prisoner issue has such resonance amongstPalestinians because so many families have beenpersonally affected by it: it has become a rallyingpoint for thousands of Palestinians, particularly in

the midst of the hunger strikes. A major release ofprisoners and detainees would be a key confidence-building measure for Palestinians and would be anessential part of any sustainable peace process.

Israeli treatment of detainees

This report has highlighted major areas of concern,covering all aspects of the Palestinian detaineesexperience, both in Israeli detention and inPalestinian Authority and Hamas jails.

Israel is the occupying power and therefore has theoverall legal responsibility for the situation in theWest Bank and Gaza Strip. As human rights agencies

C O N C L U S I O N S

have consistently reported for decades, Israelstreatment of Palestinians violates internationallaw, including the Fourth Geneva Convention.Palestinians, including children, do not get the rightto a fair trial, face indiscriminate arrests, torture,abuse and collective punishment. The scale ofthese abuses means that nearly every family in theOccupied Palestinian Territory has been affected.

Arrests are often indiscriminate, with Palestinianstaken to unknown locations and denied access tolawyers. Before detention, Palestinians face a judicialprocess that is stacked against them. Whilst indetention they may be subject to coercive methods including torture in order to obtain a confession.Other detainees may not even be charged with acrime, and are held in custody, potentially indefinitely,without ever hearing of the reasons for theirdetention. Finally, after leaving custody, there aremajor concerns about the enduring psychologicaldamage of the prison experience, on both an

individual and societal level.

Before prison: a judicial process stackedagainst Palestinians

The judicial process that any Palestinian goes throughvaries dramatically from the equivalent process anIsraeli experiences for the same crime.

ACRI, the Association for Civil Rights in Israelnotes that:

two people living next to one another aredifferentiated and treated entirely differently,and all for one reason their national ethnicity.

17


20/24

The fact that two separate judicial systemsexist in the territories, one for Jews and onefor Palestinians, violates International Law,the fundamental principles of modern law,common sense, and good conscience. It iswrong, violating both human dignity and basichuman rights.50[ACRIs emphasis]

Israeli law in the Occupied Palestinian Territorydiscriminates between Arabs and Jews.Palestinians are ill-treated, denied their rightto a fair tr ial and presumed gui lty until proveninnocent. Meanwhile settler violence againstPalestinians continues with impunity.

Whilst in custody: interrogation anddetention without trial

Israel continues to use and excuse torture

in interrogation. Apart from the physical andpsychological damage it causes, torture also violatesthe principle of presumption of innocence and, asnoted by the Israeli military judge in the rare acquittalcase outlined above, deprives the detainee of freewill. Interrogations typically take place without beingrecorded and without the presence of legal counseland, in the case of children, family members.

Many Palestinian detainees are never given the rightto a trial, let alone a fair one. At the end of April2012, there were 308 Palestinians in administrativedetention, held without charge or trial for as long as

Israel sees fit. One administrative detainee, KhaderAdnan, was released in April after refusing food for66 days. By granting Khaders release yet keepinghim behind bars for a fur ther two months, the Israeliauthorities tacitly admitted that they had no evidenceagainst him and that his detention was thereforearbitrary another breach of international law.

Life after release: freedom or just adifferent sort of prison?

Approximately 726,000-760,000 Palestinians havebeen imprisoned by Israel since the occupationbegan in 1967. This huge figure means that mostfamilies have been directly affected by the prisoner

issue, giving many Palestinians a personal grievanceagainst the occupier, thus perpetuating the conflict.

There is also the issue of the psychological damageof the detention experience, particularly to children.Mental health professionals in DCI-Palestines2012 report on child detainees noted that theexperience of imprisonment and the feelings of

helplessness that this triggers, is embedded in thecollective and personal experience of life underoccupation and military threat. It is very difficult toestimate the psychological and social repercussionsfor those maltreated and humiliated children andadolescents after their return home.51 A society inwhich most families have been directly affected bymilitary occupation has been profoundly brutalised,entrenching distrust and resentment for the occupierand rendering the prospect of a peaceful solutionmore remote than ever.

The ongoing occupation of the West Bank and Gazaalso means that Palestinian freedom, even outsideprison, is severely limited. Gaza has been describedby British Prime Minister David Cameron as a prisoncamp,52 while the barr ier in the West Bank carves upcommunities and checkpoints restrict movement. Formany Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza unableto travel internally, let alone abroad, the occupationis also a prison.

Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas

There are over 3000 detainees in PA and Hamasjails.53 Human rights groups have highlighted abusesin numerous cases. Violations include torture andabuse, with reports that 8 Palestinians died indetention between 2007 and 2010. There are alsoconcerns about the use of capital punishment,particularly in Gaza, and an overreliance on the useof military courts. On occasions, courts have givenorders for prisoners to be released and these havenot been implemented.

Many believe that Fatah and Hamas have arrested

each others supporters for political purposes. Thisrisks exacerbating divisions in Palestinian politics.Furthermore, the PA is also accused of arrestingPalestinians at Israels request. An Israeli officer

18


21/24

recently told the Economist: We give them thenames and they arrest them.54

However, more research and investigation intothese human rights abuses is necessar y to providea clearer picture. There are very few reports intothe human rights situation in areas under PA andHamas control.

Progress towards implementing the unity deal anda newly-elected PA exercising judicial authority overall the Occupied Palestinian Territory, would meanthat there was one political address to push forimproved human rights standards.

International responsibility

The international community in general andparticularly the High Contracting Parties to the

Fourth Geneva Convention, which include the USand the UK has a direct responsibility to ensurethat international law is not violated. Numerousarticles of the Convention have been breached bythe Israeli authorities on a daily basis for decades,but as yet, no genuine pressure has been applied.

As major donors to the PA, the European Union(including the UK) and the US also have aresponsibility to ensure that the PA conforms tointernational human rights standards. The US, EUand UK have helped to train Palestinian securityservices and therefore have a specific responsibility

in this regard. These security services should adhereto international norms and should not becomeproxies for the Israeli army. Given that the EU has nodealings with Hamas, its ability to pressure Hamas toimprove human rights standards is limited.

Conclusion

The failure to ensure compliance by all parties hasled to a profound disregard for the rule of law andthe further suffering of innocent civilians, who are

entitled to legal protection. International law andadherence to human rights norms are essentialcomponents of a viable peace process. However,adhering to human rights standards is also vital in

the absence of a peace process. The longer theseviolations continue, the harder future reconciliationwill be. Any attempt at a peaceful resolution tothis conflict will require far greater respect forhuman rights than has been the case hitherto. Theinternational community must insist on this and beprepared to take action against any parties thatviolate international law.

19


22/24


23/24

27 Chaim Levinson, Nearly 100% of all military courtcases in West Bank end in conviction, Haaretz learns,Haaretz, November 29, 2011, accessed June 29, 2012,http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/nearly-100-of-all-military-cour t-cases-in-west-bank-end-in-conviction-haaretz-learns-1.398369.

28 Torture in Israel, Public Committee Against Torturein Israel, accessed March 29, 2012, http://www.

stoptorture.org.il/en/skira90-99.29 Palestinian child prisoners: The systematic and

institutionalized ill-treatment and torture of Palestinianchildren by Israeli authorities, Defence for ChildrenInternational Palestine Section, accessed June 29,2012, http://www.dci-pal.org/english/publ/research/CPReport.pdf.

30 Statistics on Palestinian minors in the custody of theIsraeli security forces, BTselem, accessed March 28,2012, http://www.btselem.org/statistics/minors_in_custody.

31 Bound, Blindfolded and Convicted: Children held in

military detention, Defence for Children International-Palestine Section, accessed June 29, 2012, http://www.dci-palestine.org/sites/default/files/report_0.pdf.

32 Kept in the Dark.33 Under Israeli military orders, the charge of stone

throwing carries a maximum sentence of 20 years.34 According to Yesh Din, in 2006, full acquittals were

obtained in just 23 of the 9,123 or 0.29% casesin the military courts. Of those who were charged in2007, approximately 90% were convicted. Of theseconvictions, approximately 98% are the result of pleabargains.

35 West Bank: Reports of Torture in Palestinian

Detention, Human Rights Watch, October 20,2010, accessed February 1, 2012, http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/10/20/west-bank-reports-torture-palestinian-detention.

36 Monthly Report on Human Rights & FreedomsViolations In the Palestinian-Controlled TerritoriesDuring December 2011, Independent Commissionfor Human Rights, January 12, 2012, accessed February1, 2012, http://home.ichr.ps/en/2/5/685/December-Report-on-violations-of-HR-December-Report-on-violations-of-HR.htm.

37 Monthly Report on Human Rights and Freedoms

Violations.38 The Status of Human Rights in Palestinian Controlled

Territory: the Sixteenth Annual Report, IndependentCommission for Human Rights, August 23, 2011,

accessed February 3, 2012, http://home.ichr.ps/en/2/6/596/ICHR%E2%80%99s-16th-Annual-Report-ICHR%E2%80%99s-16th-Annual-Report.htm?d=2011.

39 Internal Fight: Palestinian Abuses in Gaza and theWest Bank, Human Rights Watch, accessed February3, 2012, http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/iopt0708_1.pdf.

40 Internal Fight.

41 The Status of Human Rights in Palestinian ControlledTerritory.

42 Ibid.43 Internal Fight.44 The Status of Human Rights in Palestinian Controlled

Territory.45 See Internal Fight, and Palestinian Authority: No

Justice for Torture Death in Custody, Human RightsWatch, February 16, 2011, accessed February 9, 2012,http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/02/16/palestinian-authority-no-justice-torture-death-custody.

46 Rory McCarthy, Fatah-led security officers accused of

torturing Hamas suspect to death, Guardian, October5, 2009, accessed March 28, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/05/fatah-hamas-torture-trial.

47 Palestinian Authority: No Justice for Torture Death inCustody.

48 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,accessed February 8, 2012, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm.

49 Death Penalty in the Palestinian Authority and UnderHamas Control, BTselem, January 1, 2011, accessedFebruary 8, 2012, http://www.btselem.org/inter_palestinian_violations/death_penalty_in_the_pa.

50 Situation Report: The State of Human Rights in Israeland the OPT.

51 Bound, Blindfolded and Convicted.52 Gaza is a prison camp, says David Cameron, Daily

Telegraph, July 27, 2010, accessed March 29, 2012,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/7912095/Gaza-is-a-prison-camp-says-David-Cameron.html.

53 Annual Report 2011, International Committee of theRed Cross, accessed July 4, 2012, http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/annual-report/icrc-annual-report-2011.pdf.

54 The calm may not last forever, The Economist, June30, 2012, accessed July 4, 2012, http://www.economist.com/node/21557812.

21


24/24

I M P R I N T

Copyright 2012 Caabu

Published by:Caabu - The Council for British-Arab Understanding1 Gough Square . London . EC4A 3DE+44 020 78 32 13 21 . [email protected]

Photographs:Images used in this report have been generouslyprovided by:BTselem . Al Haq . Addameer . DCI Palestine

Graphic Design:Natasha AruriLeberstrae 6 . 10829 Berlin . Germany+49 (0)30 78 95 30 66 . [email protected]

Palestinian detainees: no security in injustice

Documents

Transcript of Palestinian detainees: no security in injustice