“Legal” Cover for Illegitimate Practices: 
Arbitrary Arrests and Prison Conditions of Palestinian Political Prisoners in Israeli Prisons and Detention Centers 
Al-Haq
http://asp.alhaq.org/zalhaq/site/eDocs/txtDocs/Presentations/pres_randa_280403.htm  

 
“The journey to the Negev took about four hours. During this time our minds were full of images of the desert, which forms one third of the area of historical Palestine. The image of that desert was beginning to implant itself in our brains. This desert would be our exile.
  
The Ansar 3 prison, also known as Ktse'ot, appeared on the horizon. We had been uprooted and brought to this desert.  It was extremely hard to leave the sturdy, well-established white houses of Ramallah, which were visible from the Ofer military camp, for this deserted place.
 
Our handcuffs and blindfolds were tightly fastened and it was difficult to even glance outside of the bus.  The soldiers made fun of us, and we finally decided to challenge them.”[1][1]
 
Introduction
An accurate understanding of the detention realities and circumstances of thousands of Palestinian prisoners and detainees in the Israeli prisons requires a comprehensive and accurate understanding of the complicated legal status, legislation and military orders passed by the occupation authorities applicable in the Palestinian occupied territories, in addition to their reflections on the reality of human rights in general and for the Palestinian detainees in particular. From this point, we see it is necessary to start this paper by elaborating on the legal status in the Palestinian territories, and the reality of the Israeli attitude from its existence in these territories.  
  
The military occupation, during more than thirty six years, attempted to legitimize its practices by using legal pretexts and judicial support for its flagrant violations of human rights and daily crimes committed against the Palestinian people including children, women, men and the elderly without giving any respect to human rights standards and principles. Definitely, these practices remain illegitimate despite their legal cover. Not only do these practices not have any support in international humanitarian law, but they also violate all the standards and foundations laid down by this law. 
  
First: Legal Status of the Occupied Palestinian Territories 
1.      Israeli Military Orders 
The occupation authorities issued more than 1500 military orders in the West Bank and a similar number in Gaza Strip through the successive military governors in the occupied territories over the occupation years. These military orders aimed at giving the Israeli authorities full control over all aspects of economic, social, cultural, political and civil Palestinian life. Although international humanitarian law, in general, the annexes of the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907[2][2], and the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949 do not give the occupation authorities the right to change or amend laws applicable prior to occupation unless the change or amendment is for “security reasons” or for “the benefit of the indigenous population”, the military orders issued by the occupation forces have exceeded the reasonable levels of “maintaining security”. For example, the passing of a military order banning the installation of traffic lights with the aim of regulating the traffic movement has been justified as a “security necessity”. Moreover, the picking of “uncultivated thyme” has also become, according to another military order, justified by the occupation as it violates “the benefit of the indigenous population”. Consequently, we see that the Occupying Power, in issuing the military orders, has drawn upon pretexts and defenses based on international humanitarian law. But the occupier made these pretexts and defenses so loose that they could allow it (occupier) to “legally” justify them in a manner that serves their interests and control over the land and population. 
In this way and despite its arbitrary policies and violation of the Palestinian human rights, the Israeli occupation appears before the world public opinion as if it respects the rules of the international law and abides by its principles. It also seems to those who do not have deep cognizance of the situation, that Israel is a democratic State based on the rule of the law and respects the international standards of human rights. But in reality, the military orders have enabled the occupation authorities to confiscate Palestinian lands, build and expand Jewish settlements, exploit water resources and various economic wealth, have control over crossing points, give work permits, and even have control over the rights of the Palestinian people to movement, transportation and practicing of a normal life. Moreover, the occupation imposed its control over the movement of goods and agricultural products from and to Israel in addition to transforming the Palestinian labour force into cheap labour in the Israeli factories and enterprises. At the same time, it designed the West Bank and Gaza Strip markets for absorbing Israeli goods and products and preventing the Palestinian goods from entering the Israeli markets and intervening in the export of Palestinian products, especially agricultural products, to the outside world. 
The judicial system has been re-organized shortly after occupation in a manner that extended the powers given to the military governor to include the penal and rights issues, which are usually within the jurisdiction of the civil courts. Also, the occupation authorities issued military order number 378 of 1970 in accordance with which the role of the military judiciary was confined in one degree of litigation, a fact that made it difficult to appeal against the judgment issued by it[3][3]. The military order number 29 concerning prisons required that the lawyer, during his visit to his client in the prison, should be subjected to the approval of the prison director who can prohibit the visit without giving any reasons. The occupation forces continued issuing military orders under the establishment of the Palestinian National authorities in 1994, the most important of which is military order number 1500 issued in April of the last year. This order gives the military leader (officer rank) the right to arrest anybody for a period that may exceed 18 days without allowing him to meet with his lawyers or submit a memorandum against his arrest[4][4]. 
  
2.      British Emergency Regulations 
That was not sufficient for the occupier, and it went so far as to depend in many of its violations of human rights on the British Emergency Regulations of 1945. These regulations were known for   “the cruelty and strictness of their decisions” and allowed for the Mandate authorities represented by the high commissioner or military leader to use the administrative procedures represented in administrative detention. This means the detention of any person without presenting a bill of indictment against him (article 108 and 111), deportation or exile (article 112/A), closure of inhabited areas and announcing them closed military areas, and imposition of curfews (article 125) and other procedures. These regulations have formed the legal foundation and material of the military orders content issued by the occupation authorities, including military order No. 378 of 1970 known as “security regulations”. According to this order, military courts are formed and given   broad jurisdiction, as above-mentioned, and powers for hearing and judging all convicted persons under the orders and legislation of occupation. 
What concerns us about military order No. 378 is that it takes its texts and articles from the British Defense Regulations as the legal title for the content of the military orders being a part of the local penal legislation applicable in the Palestinian territory before occupation. This was supported by the Israeli higher judiciary, which also confirmed its legitimacy in many of the provisions issued by it. 
Contrary to that, we at Al-Haq, by virtue of official, specific and documented correspondence affirm the invalidity of the Israeli allegations in this context. We may say that that the Israeli dependence on the British Defense Regulations or British Emergency Laws as local and penal legislation is invalid and illegitimate. This is due to the fact that the British Mandate had overruled the application of the British Emergency Laws before the termination of the British Mandate on Palestine in 1948, as the Minister of State in the British Commonwealth and Foreign Ministry, Timony Ranton, affirmed in 1987. In his letter to Al-Haq he said “I affirm that due to the Palestinian Annulment Law of 1948, the British Defense Law of 1937 and the British Emergency Laws of 1945 were no longer applicable as British laws.” Moreover, the Jordanian government affirmed, in an official letter to Al-Haq in the same year, that the laws applicable in the West Bank during the Jordanian rule were only the Jordanian laws. Accordingly, the British Emergency Laws were not applicable on the eve of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and had not had any legal value since the withdrawal of the British Mandate from Palestine. 
Therefore, we see that the revival of the British Emergency Laws by the Israeli occupation authorities is nothing but a type of legislation carried out by the occupation in order to dominate the Palestinian territories through the enhancement of the “security” provision in these territories. 
  
Second:  Legitimacy of the British Emergency Laws and Israeli Military Orders in Light of the International Law 
The legal concept of the military occupation is applied to the Palestinian territories. This virtually means the applicability and validity of the International Humanitarian Law, particularly the Fourth Geneva Conventions, on the various legal relations that emerge between the occupier and the population of the occupied territories. The Israeli occupation authorities have recognized this fact by issuing military statement No. 3. Article 35 of this statement has stated that “the military court and its directorate has to apply the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 Concerning the Protection of the Civilian Population in the Time of War as regards all the judicial proceedings. In case of contradiction between this and the above-mentioned Convention, the priority shall be given to the provisions of the Convention.” 
But the Israeli military leadership terminated the enforcement of article 35 of the above-mentioned statement by virtue of the military order No. 107 issued on 11 October 1967 in Gaza Strip and North Sinai and military order No. 144 issued on 23 October 1967 in the West Bank. Israel justified its acts by saying that the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Conventions do not have superiority or priority over Israeli law and the military leadership instructions and what article 35 of statement 3 included regarding the Fourth Geneva Convention was mistake, and therefore had been annulled. 
The Israeli military occupation attitude has not changed so far despite Israel’s attempts to mislead international public opinion by its continuous allegations that it continues performing its duty by maintaining the public discipline in the Palestinian territories through the actual application of all humanitarian standards and principles set forth in the Fourth Geneva Convention, despite its contentment that this Convention is not applicable in the Palestinian territories. The Israeli law experts have presented many legal pretexts to justify the attitude of their government as regards the non-application of Geneva Convention in the occupied Palestinian territories, which are represented in the following: 
1.      Israel is not an occupying power under the provisions and rules of the international law because the people who were exiled from these territories had not had legitimate sovereignty over these territories nor had they been internationally recognized. Consequently, as the Jordanian existence on the Palestinian territories is illegitimate, the successor, that is the Israeli administration of the territories, is legitimate (Yahuda Afi Blom). On the other hand, Gabriel Bach, the attorney general of the Israeli government, justified his government’s refusal to apply the Geneva Conventions on the Palestinian territories. He said “Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank in 1950 was only recognized by Britain and Pakistan, and the sovereignty issue on these territories has not been decided yet. Therefore, Israel considers itself the existing authority in these territories, and Israel is entrusted to administer these territories until its status is decided by negotiations.” 
2.      The international conventions concluded by Israel do not have binding legal value and consequently, they may not be applied unless they become a part of the local Israeli law. This may take place when the Israeli Kennest issues a special legislation concerning that issue.  The Fourth Geneva Convention is considered not binding to confront Israel due to non-issuance of such legislation. 
Without burdening ourselves in refuting these justifications, we indicate that the international community has bluntly and openly recognized that the concept of military occupation applies to the Palestinian territories, and therefore, it should be subjected to the provisions and rules of the international humanitarian law that regulate the situation of occupation. Moreover, the Contracting State Parties to the four Geneva Conventions have recognized the application of occupation incident on the Palestinian territories and that the occupying country is bound to respect and apply the Fourth Geneva Convention on these territories. 
  
3.      Practices of the Israeli Occupation Authorities vis-à-vis the Palestinian Detainees 
The Israeli practices in the occupied Palestinian territories in general and those related to the Palestinian detainees in particular have violated all the guarantees designated for the detainees under the provisions of international humanitarian law and human rights law. The Palestinian detainees are subjected to a number of practices, including the following, but not limited to: 
·          Holding Palestinians in administrative detention for long periods in accordance with the British Emergency Regulations without submitting a bill of indictment against them or bringing them to court. 
·          Overlooking the standards of just trial in case of submitting a bill of indictment against the detainees or bringing them to military court and impeding the timely contact of the detainees with their lawyers. 
·          Subjecting the detainees to torture and maltreatment and other humiliating and cruel forms of treatment. It is worth noting that Israel is the only country that legitimized the practice of torture by allowing the use of “limited physical violence in cases the security men deem it necessary.” 
·          Putting the detainees in very difficult living conditions where a big number is held in the detention room in addition to putting some of them in confinement cells for long periods. 
·          Transferring the detainees to the occupation country and putting them in remote areas difficult to reach. 
·          Deliberate mixing between adults and minors, on one hand, and between political detainees and those arrested for criminal reasons, especially in the case of women political prisoners, on the other. 
·          Lack of medical care for the detainees, especially those who suffer from chronic diseases and are in need of continuous attention. 
·          Prohibition of visits and contact with their families. 
  
1.      Palestinian Detainees Statistics 
According to documented information published by Palestinian human rights organizations and the Palestinian law NGOs in addition to official sources as the statistics provided by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Israeli military occupation forces, the number of Palestinian detainees amounted to 28,000 since the outbreak of the present Intifada. Presently, there are approximately 5700 prisoners (males and females) who are detained in four detention centers. This number includes 1200 administrative detainees who are being held without charges, nor have they been brought to trial. Moreover, there are 66 women prisoners detained in Al-Ramleh prison within the Green Line and about 200 boys of no more than 18 years who live under very difficult conditions of detention[5][5]. 
  
2.      Living Conditions Inside the Israeli Prisons 
Through declarations with oath available at Al-Haq that were directly compiled by regular visits to Israeli prisons and detention centers, it may be said that Palestinian detainees live under difficult circumstances. They are subjected, since the first moment of their arrest, to humiliation, beating and maltreatment. During the investigation period, they are put in solitary cells and exposed to beating and torture as the Israeli High Court legitimized “specific use of force during the investigation period”. Force is used in order to pull out information from detainees who are charged with having information that may cause “security” damages, such as information on expected suicide bombings. Despite the international pressures that obliged the Israeli High Court to withdraw its decision in 1999, it continued to legitimize torture by issuing special decisions that allow the use of “not normal ways of investigation”. This means that the court indirectly allowed the use of torture in exceptional cases. But exception has become the rule of practice for the Israeli intelligence apparatuses by obtaining “special permission” from the judiciary apparatus of inflicting torture and maltreating the Palestinian detainees. These include deprivation of sleep, beating and hanging with hands or legs for long periods and last but not least shaking and using other means that show no respect for human dignity. 
The living conditions inside the prisons are very difficult due to the fact that the prison administrations do not take into account the minimum needs of the prisoners. On the contrary, they violate the simplest living requirements, including food, water and basic needs, and they violate the international standards and instruments for the protection of human rights. Moreover, the prison administrations do not provide the detainees with the minimum-needed medical care, and the ill prisoners are not examined by doctors or given the needed medicine or treatment, especially those who have chronic diseases, such as cancer, failure of kidneys, etc. 
In a declaration with oath, the administrative detainee in Annsar 3 desert detention, Saleh Said Hasis, affirmed that he suffers from kidneys problems and he was going to undergo a surgical operation before his detention. Although the detention doctor confirmed his need to a surgical operation and that any delay may cause kidney failure, the prison administration refused to refer him to the hospital for this purpose, and at the same time it does not offer him the required treatment, except for some pain tranquilizers. 
Moreover, the difficult detention conditions and subjection of prisoners to torture and maltreatment causes new diseases, not to mention the lack of medical care for the wounded and injured prisoners who have been injured during the process of their detention, and leads to their health deterioration. For example, due to the lack of detergents and sterilization substances needed, a skin disease scabies spread among the detainees in Annsar 3. Although the prisoners submitted a complaint to the prison administration to offer treatment to the patients and to prevent the spread of this disease among the detainees, the prison administration has not responded, nor it has provided the required treatment for the infected, in spite of the danger of this disease. 
  The situation of the women prisoners is not any better. Recently, Al-Haq was able to visit Al-Ramleh prison inside the Green Line in which 66 women prisoner are detained. According to the information reported by Amneh Mona, the women prisoners’ representative, in a visit for Al-Haq on 19 February 2003, women detainees live under difficult circumstances. Among these 66 detainees, there are nine girls of less than 18 years, and five married women detainees. Every six women detainees are confined in one room of an area that does not exceed 14 square meters, while every two detainees of less than 18 years are confined in one room. It is worth noting that the prison administration creates problems with the detainees or among the women detainees. For example, the prison administration has allowed two women detainees out of six to resume their secondary study, whereas it prevented the other four from that without any justification and prevented the entry of the required textbooks. 
Women detainees are subjected to humiliating inspection by the jailers who deliberately take off the detainees’ clothes, particularly when they are taken to the court. Palestinian women detainees are also insulted and scolded by jailers and Israeli criminal prisoners who are separated from Palestinian political prisoners by barbed wire. They are also not provided with the minimum level of adequate food and detergents. In case they demand hot water or detergents, they will be put in solitary confinement for days and sometimes for a week during which they are exposed to beating and insulting by Israeli women jailers. For instance, on 11 February 2003, when women detainees demanded the provision of their needs, the jailers handcuffed and tied the feet of Nisreen Abu Zeineh and started beating her after they threw her on the ground. Also detainee Aishah Obeit was handcuffed by plastic fetters that strongly and tightly tied her hands, and she was isolated for seven days in a confinement cell of an area that does not exceed three -square meters. 
Women detainees also suffer from lack of medical care as is the case of Asma’ Dakhlallah, a mother of six children, who suffers from cancer in the head that causes for her continuous pains but instead of providing her with medical treatment she is inhumanely treated. The only thing she is given for her pains are tranquilizers, although she was administratively detained for six month as a form of pressure on her husband who is wanted by the Israeli forces. Another example of the circumstances under which women detainees live is Mirvat Taha, 19 years, who was pregnant when she was detained and gave birth to her baby in the prison. The prison administration brought her back from the hospital to the prison only one day after delivery while her baby was allowed entry to prison after another day. 
Despite the similarity between women detainees’ sufferings and men detainees’ sufferings, the detention circumstances of women have their particularities. Some political women detainees originally suffer from social and psychological problems and live in broken families, a fact that is reflected in their situation inside the prisons. This is because there is a close relationship between the social reality in which women live under paternal society that does not give her equal circumstances with the man inside the household, and the political reality of the Palestinian woman. It is also noticed that the social and psychological problems that women detainees suffer from reflect distinctive circumstances which are related to the social reality and the familial circumstances in which women had lived before. Therefore, the women detainees’ need for specialized psychological and social care is of the utmost importance. The law organizations in cooperation with women organizations seek to provide these services for the political women detainees in order to ensure a better life for them after their release. This particularity is important because it was and may still be a beginning to falling inside the prison and a continuation of sufferings of another type inside the household and society later on. 
  
Fourth: Arbitrary Arrests against Palestinian Civilian Population 
The Israeli occupation authorities wage broad arrest campaigns during their raid on Palestinian cities, villages and camps. The most important example is the arrest campaign that accompanied the invasions that took place in March and April of the last year. The occupation forces raided the Palestinian houses, carried out house-to-house searches and arrested the young men in an arbitrary manner without giving any reasons for arresting them. Then, the Israeli forces gathered them in schoolyards, which have been transformed to detention centers, and then transferred them to Israeli detention centers. The most egregious feature of these detentions is that they are arbitrary and broad arrests, which involve minors, youth and men of all age groups and social strata, their only offense being that they are men and Palestinian. 
The broad and arbitrary detentions carried out by the occupation forces against the Palestinian civilians represent a form of collective punishment in contradiction to article 13 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prevents collective punishment. This article states that “No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.” 
Subsequently, the occupation forces expose the detainees to beating, insulting and torture during the investigation period in an attempt to obtain information from them on actions they had previously carried out or they were planning to carry out against the Israeli occupation forces. Although resistance against occupation and its arbitrary practices is legitimate under international law, and these acts are considered a part of the Palestinian people's resistance and struggle against occupation in order to achieve their right to liberation and independence, the occupation forces call it “terrorism” or “destructive acts”. Subsequently, occupation authorities submit bills of indictment against those who resist occupation and bring them to military courts, where formal judiciary proceedings take place, severe judgments are taken against them, and they are imprisoned for long periods. In accordance with the Israeli law, the non-confession of the accused of committing the charge and confession of others are considered conclusive evidence that judgments issued by the military judges may be based on. 
  
1.      Administrative Detention and its illegitimacy 
In case the occupation forces and the intelligence apparatuses are not able to obtain evident and sure confessions against the detainees, they arbitrarily hold them under the British Emergency Regulations. This is carried out by passing a judgment for holding the prisoners in administrative detention for a period of six months without charges or trial. The Israeli forces may also present the detainees before a military “objection committee” that may extend their detention for another six months due to the existence of a “confidential file” against the charged persons that may not be tolerated before the court for security necessities. As such matters go because the occupation authorities can, through this procedure, renew the administrative detention against a certain person indefinitely[6][6]. 
As a result, the Israeli occupation forces give themselves the right, through the British Emergency Regulations, to detain any Palestinian for a long period without a specific charge or trial. This procedure is in contradiction to the provisions of Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. Although this Convention permitted the use of detention and administrative detention by the occupying power as “preventive proceedings”, the provisions of the Convention had bound it with the necessity of taking into account a number of restrictions in case of carrying out these detentions. Among these restrictions is the formation of a court or a specialized administrative committee by the occupation authorities for examining the detention orders at least twice a year. Article 78 of the same Convention also states that “Decisions regarding such assigned residence or internment shall be made according to a regular procedure to be prescribed by the Occupying Power in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention. This procedure shall include the right of appeal for the parties concerned. Appeals shall be decided with the least possible delay” 
Consequently, the administrative detention has to be taken as a preventive measure according to specific “legal procedures” in such a manner that they give the detainee the opportunity to appeal to judicial parties or administrative committees specialized in the appeal of detention orders. As previously mentioned, the occupation’s attempt to give the legal and legitimate characteristic to its practices made it establish military objection committees for hearing the detention requests. But in reality, these courts remained formal as they have as a basic task the confirmation or extension of the administrative decisions and not giving the detainee opportunity to appeal and achieve justice. In this way, the Israeli occupation forces deny the detainees the right to take their cases to courts and substitute that by administrative apparatuses or semi-judicial bodies that do not ensure the sufficient procedural protection for achieving justice. Hence, the occupation violates the Fourth Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international human rights declarations and instruments. 
Within this framework, the UN tripartite commissioned to examine the Israeli practices that undermine Palestinian human rights in the occupied territories reported that after studying the British emergency Regulations of 1945, it found that it is necessary to examine their legitimacy before discussing their application. The UN tripartite considered that in the matter of the Palestinian case, there is no justification for the use of these Regulations in the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967 by Israel as a belligerent occupying power, to whom the Fourth Geneva Conventions applies, and who is bound to respect and apply it. 
  
2.      Absence of Legal Guarantees for the Accused 
The right of the accused to litigation and to defend himself against a charge is a one of the most important rights that ensure his individual freedom and it is one of the recognized fundamental guarantees for the individual to confront the oppression of the authorities. This right has been recognized, as above mentioned, by many of the universal declarations and instruments. Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.” Article 11 (1) of the same Declaration also states “Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.” 
Article 14 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights affirmed “In determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: 
a.       To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him 
b.      To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defense and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing 
c.       To be tried without undue delay[7] 
Article 71 of the Fourth Geneva Convention affirmed “No sentence shall be pronounced by the competent courts of the Occupying Power except after a regular trial. Accused persons shall be promptly informed, in writing, in a language which they understand of the particulars of the charges preferred against them.” Article 72 states “Accused persons shall have the right to present evidence necessary to their defense and may, in particular, call witnesses. They shall have the right to be assisted by a qualified advocate or counsel of their own choice, who shall be able to visit them freely and shall enjoy the necessary facilities for preparing the defense.” Several guarantees are also provided by the set of principles issued by the United Nations relevant to the protection of all the persons subjected to any form of custody or imprisonment. These rights include but ARE NOT limited to the right to hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, right to defend oneself, right to choose a qualified lawyer, and other rights. 
Here evidently appears the issue of “legal” characteristic and the “judicial” coverage vis-à-vis “legitimacy”. That is because allegedly the occupation forces ensured for the Palestinians activists of the Intifada three judicial or semi-judicial bodies for which the activist detainees may appeal, including the military courts, military objections committees and the Israeli High Court. While in reality, if anyone scrutinizes the proceedings and decisions issued by these judicial bodies, he will obviously notice the absence of the simplest standards that ensure a neutral and just trial. 
  
A.     At the level of military courts: Such courts consist of chairman who must be a law officer and two judges. Sometimes the court may be formed of one judge having powers to hear some cases and pass judgments that do not exceed five years imprisonment. But the judgments of the military courts are final and cannot be appealed before any judicial body. But the convicted person may under article 43 of the military order No. 378 submit an application to the military leader who was given the right to ratify or annul the courts’ decisions and the power to annul the whole trial and demand holding it again before another military court. 
B.      At the level of objection committees: In accordance with the military order No. 172 of 22 November 1967, the military objection committees were authorized the powers of the local courts of appeal that were overruled directly after occupation. These committees usually consist of three military officers headed by a law officer or an officer with high military rank. These committees practice the task of appeal on the orders issued by military leaders who are given the powers of investigation, and punishments including detention, deportation and house demolition and other procedures. 
The majority of military trials that take place during the first Intifada and present Intifada confirm that Israeli military courts violated legal and judicial guarantees recognized by International humanitarian law and human rights laws. Most important of these violations are: 
          ·          Not informing the defending counsel of date and place of holding the trials and thus depriving the detainee of having the assistance of a lawyer. 
          ·          Courts sometimes abstain from revealing the evidence of charge to the accused person and his lawyer (court allows and accepts what is called the confidential file).[8] 
          ·          Briefing the accused and his lawyer of the evidence of charge in Hebrew and depriving him of translation. 
          ·          In case the defending counsel demanded to adjourn the hearing in some cases, the court would give one or two days only, which does not give him enough time to benefit from the trial adjournment. 
C.     At the level of high courts: Despite the illegitimacy of extending the regional jurisdiction of the Israeli supreme court to the Palestinian territory, which is considered by the international law an occupied territory, judicial advisor of the Israeli government allowed that. It is worth noting that the role of the High Court is exclusively the evaluation of the procedural side of the military leader orders. That is to verify if the order issued by any military leader is “legal” according to the “adopted measures” concerning the functional aspect and validity of the side that issued the order and if it has a law that entitles this side to issue it. Also, it is to make sure that the military leader committed to and observed the powers assumed to him in accordance with the defense regulations and military orders upon issuing orders and decisions. 
The best evidence of that are the hundreds if not thousands of decisions issued by this Court since the outbreak of current Intifada, due to the fact that its decisions formed important legal precedent by giving, for example, legitimacy to house demolition, torturing, deportation, administrative detention and others. This Court also gave opportunity for the Israeli authorities to look for new ways to legally cover its practices and violations of human rights. The best example is the case of “Alon Moreh” settlement that was built on privately owned lands and the High Court accepted the case and considered the confiscation of land for building settlements an illegal act.  But soon the occupation authorities found a way out by confiscating land for building settlements, by searching for other justifications, as, for example, confiscating land necessary for military purposes[7][9]. 
  
Conclusion 
Consequently, the occupation, by supporting its practices with legal coverage and the assistance of the Israeli judicial body, was able to proceed in violating the Palestinian people's rights, assisted by military orders and decisions and relying on inapplicable laws and regulations such as the British Emergency Regulations, in order to legitimize its practices and crimes.  At the same time, it ignored its international obligations under international humanitarian law and human rights law by using legal pretexts and justifications and by attempting to give legitimacy to its occupation and usurpation of Palestinian territories. But, how can such belligerent occupation be “legal” when the international community decides that it is “illegal”? It is an occupation that deprived the Palestinian people of their simplest rights, particularly the right to determine their political, civil, economic, social and cultural destiny under the sovereign Palestinian State.