The Torture And Ill-Treatment Of Palestinian Detainees 


In recent years, Israel has openly admitted that ISA (formerly the General
Security Service) interrogators employ "exceptional" interrogation methods
and "physical pressure" against Palestinian detainees in situations
labeled "ticking bombs". B'Tselem and HaMoked - Center for the Defence of
the Individual have examined these interrogation methods and the frequency
with which they are used, as well as other harmful practices. The report's
findings are based on the testimonies of 73 Palestinian residents of the
West Bank who were arrested between July 2005 and January 2006 and
interrogated by the ISA. Although it is not a representative sample, it
does provide a valid indication of the frequency of the reported
phenomena. 
The Legal Framework 
International law absolutely prohibits torture and ill-treatment. States
may not derogate from this prohibition even in the harsh circumstances of
fighting terrorism. The responsibility, in case of violation, rests not
just with the state, but also with the individual abusers who may face
prosecution in other countries. 

In its ruling from September 1999, the HCJ determined that the ISA did not
have legal authority to use "physical means" against interrogees. Pressure
and a measure of discomfort are legitimate, according to this judgment,
only as a side-effect of the necessities of the interrogation and not as a
means for breaking the interrogees' spirit. However, it was established
that ISA agents who abused interrogees in "ticking bomb" situations may
avoid prosecution. This ruling implicitly legitimized these severe acts,
contrary to international law, which does not acknowledge any exceptions
to the prohibition on torture and ill-treatment. 

The "Softening Up" of Detainees Prior to Interrogation 

The witnesses reported being subjected to beating, painful binding,
swearing and humiliation and denial of basic needs at the hands of
security forces personnel from the moment of arrest until being
transferred to the ISA. About two thirds of the witnesses (49 of 73)
reported that they had undergone at least one of these forms of abuse,
which are defined by international law as ill-treatment and may reach the
level of torture. This research did not examine the question whether this
ill-treatment was intended to "soften up" the detainees for the ISA
interrogations. It is, however, its practical outcome. 

The ISA Interrogation System: Routine Ill-treatment 

The ISA interrogation system includes seven key aspects which harm, to
varying degrees, the dignity and bodily integrity of the detainees. This
injury is intensified considering the combined exercise of these aspects
during the interrogation period which, for the witnesses in the sample,
lasted an average of 35 days: 

Isolation from the outside world - prohibition on meetings between
detainees and their attorneys or ICRC representatives; 


The use of the conditions of imprisonment as a means of psychological
pressure - holding in solitary confinement and in putrid, stifling cells; 


The use of conditions of imprisonment as a means for weakening the body -
preventing physical activity, sleep disturbance, inadequate food supply; 


Shackling in the " shabah " position - painful binding of the detainee's
hands and feet to a chair; 


Cursing and humiliation - cursing, strip searches, shouting, spitting
etc.; 


Threats and intimidation - including the threat of physical torture,
arrest of family members, etc.; 


The use of informants, " 'asafir " to extract information - this method is
not harmful, as such, but its efficacy largely depends on the
ill-treatment of detainees immediately preceding its implementation. 
These methods were employed against the vast majority of witnesses
included in the sample. These measures are not inevitable side-effects of
the necessities of detention and interrogation, but are rather intended to
break the spirit of the interrogees. As such, they deviate from the HCJ
ruling and constitute, under international law, prohibited ill-treatment.
Moreover, under certain circumstances, these measures may amount to
torture. 

"Special" Interrogation Methods 

In addition to routine measures, in some cases, probably those considered
"ticking bombs", ISA interrogators also use "special" methods which mostly
involve direct physical violence. The sample witnesses described seven
such methods: 

Sleep deprivation for over 24 hours (15 cases); 


"Dry" beatings (17 cases); 


Painful tightening of handcuffs, sometimes while cutting off blood flow (5
cases); 


Sudden pulling of the body while causing pain in the hand joints which are
cuffed to the chair (6 cases); 


Sudden tilting of the head sideways or backwards (8 cases); 


The "frog" crouch (forcing the detainees to crouch on tiptoes) accompanied
by shoving (3 cases); 


The "banana" position - bending the back of the interrogee in an arch
while he is seated on a backless chair (5 cases). 
These measures are defined as torture under international law. Their use
is not negligible, even if not routine. The HCJ did rule that ISA
interrogators who abused interrogees in "ticking bomb" situations may be
exempted from criminal liability, but this only when the ill-treatment was
used as a spontaneous response by an individual interrogator to an
unexpected occurrence. In practice, all evidence points to the fact that
"special" methods are preauthorized and are used according a preset
regulations. 

Cover up and Whitewashing Mechanisms 

The ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian detainees by soldiers and ISA
interrogators do not take place in a void, but rather under the auspices
of the Israeli law enforcement system. 

Despite the fact that since 2001 the State Attorney's Office received over
500 complaints regarding ill-treatment by ISA interrogators, it has not
found cause to order the instigation of a single criminal investigation.
The State Attorney's decisions on this issue are based on the findings of
an examination conducted by the "Inspector of Complaints by ISA
Interrogees," who is an ISA agent, answerable to the head of the
organization. Even when the findings have shown that ISA interrogators did
indeed abuse an interrogee, the State Attorney's Office has closed the
file based on a biased interpretation of the ruling regarding the
applicability of the "necessity defense" in the HCJ 1999 judgment. 

Most cases of ill-treatment of Palestinians by soldiers are not
investigated at all, and few of those that do, culminate in an indictment.
In many cases, this is due to various institutional failings such as
delays in instigation investigations. Additionally, it may be assumed that
without concerted and proactive efforts on the part of the authorities,
the chances of detainees submitting complaints regarding injuries they
have suffered during their arrest are quite low. 

The ISA interrogation system is significantly aided by the HCJ, which
serves as a rubber stamp on orders which regulate the isolation of the
interogees from the outside world. The HCJ did not accept even one of the
hundreds of petitions brought before it against such orders. The HCJ also
routinely allows the ISA to conceal from the detainees the very fact that
an order against them has been issued as well as the legal proceedings
taking place in their case. All this with the purpose of increasing the
psychological pressure employed against them.

Recommendations 

To instruct the ISA to halt immediately and completely the use of all
interrogation methods that injure the dignity or physical integrity of
interrogees; 
To initiate legislation strictly prohibiting torture and ill-treatment and
preventing the possibility of the "necessity defense" being enjoyed by
public employees suspected of such actions; 
To determine that any complaint filed against ISA interrogators on account
of ill-treatment during interrogations will be investigated by an
independent body, and prosecute those responsible where the complaint has
been sustained; 
To document ISA interrogations by means of video filming and to open ISA
interrogation facilities to objective external review, including review by
the UN Special Rapporteur on torture; 
To ensure, in legislation and in practice, that every detainee receives
minimum humane conditions of incarceration, and to abolish the provisions
discriminating against "security" detainees in terms of such conditions; 
To abolish the military order permitting the ISA to prevent meetings
between detainees and their attorneys, and to apply the same standards to
Palestinian detainees as are established in the Israeli Detentions Law; 
To bring security forces personnel who abused Palestinian detainees to
justice. 
These measures are defined as torture under international law. Their use
is not negligible, even if not routine. The HCJ did rule that ISA
interrogators who abused interrogees in "ticking bomb" situations may be
exempted from criminal liability, but this only when the ill-treatment was
used as a spontaneous response by an individual interrogator to an
unexpected occurrence. In practice, all evidence points to the fact that
"special" methods are preauthorized and are used according a preset
regulations. 

http://www.btselem.org/english/Publications/Summaries/200705_Utterly_Forbidden.asp

-- 
visitate http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm 


5 per mille all'Associazione di amicizia Italia-Cuba cod.fis. 96233920584 


questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news segnala gli abusi ad abuse@newsland.it