Statement by 
Mr. Shai Nitzan, Adv.
Deputy State Attorney for Special Affairs
Ministry of Justice, Jerusalem

Before the
Committee Against Torture
42nd Session

5 May 2009
Geneva


àÐÕÝ äêÙ×Ô - CAT
Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Members of the Committee, 

I would like to express my appreciation for the important work carried out by this Committee. Israel has submitted its 4th Periodic Report, and we look forward to engaging in a constructive and meaningful dialogue with this Committee. 
Ever since its inception, Israel participated in seven wars, and has endured many terrorist attacks. Throughout the last decade, the state of Israel has been subject to a continuous and murderous string of terrorist attacks, which have targeted Israelis wherever they may be, utterly failing to distinguish between soldiers and civilians.  We reiterate that the Gaza Strip is controlled by a murderous terrorist organization which acts unceasingly to strike at the State of Israel and its inhabitants, violating every possible rule of international in law in its violent acts, which are directed indiscriminately towards civilians – men, women and children.. 
Since our last presentation before this committee, the threat of terrorism against Israel has not diminished, regretfully. To the contrary, during the current period of ongoing terrorism, more than 1,100 Israelis have been killed, and nearly 8,000 have been wounded. Terrorist attacks against Israelis are carried out both in Israel as well as in the West Bank and Gaza and also from within these territories. These attacks are generally aimed at civilian centers, streets and buses, and also against the bases and facilities of the Israel Defence Force. The methods used by terrorist organizations are exceptionally diverse: shooting attacks, suicide bombers, mortar attacks, rocket firing, car bombs, etc.
In the last eight years, there has been continuous firing of rockets on Israeli communities in southern Israel. The terrorist attacks have intensified and worsened since the Hamas terrorist organization took control of the Gaza Strip. During these years, hundreds of thousands of Israeli children, women and men were terrorized by endless attacks executed by Hamas and other terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza Strip. Thousands of rockets and mortars were fired at schools, kindergartens and residential neighborhoods. In 2008 alone, 3,716 rockets and mortars were fired at Southern Israel, and since 2005, 9,555. The firing resulted in many civilians killed and injured, and disturbed any attempt to live a normal life in the cities and communities of Southern Israel. 
In spite of the numerous, unique and pressing difficulties and dilemmas facing Israel in its unceasing struggle against terrorism, Israel remains fully committed to respecting its international obligations as a party to the six core human rights treaties. Israel's position is that the basic human rights of all persons under its jurisdiction must never be violated, regardless of the crimes committed. Accordingly, we acknowledge that Israel, like every other democratic responsible member of the international community, must impose restraints on its own actions, in conformity with human rights and principles of international law. 
Preventing terrorism effectively while ensuring that the basic human rights of even the most dangerous and brutal criminals are protected, is clearly a demanding and complex task. Indeed, as a democracy, Israel must often fight with one hand tied behind its back. 
It should be noted, that the terrorists that threaten the safety of Israel's citizens do not oblige to the international humanitarian law, in contrary to Israel. As the President of the Supreme Court, D. Beinisch, held:
In conclusion, we reiterate that the Gaza Strip is controlled by a murderous terrorist organization, which acts unceasingly to strike at the State of Israel and its inhabitants, violating every possible rule of international law in its violent acts, which are directed indiscriminately toward civilians — men, women and children. HCJ 9132/07 Jaber Al-Bassiouni Ahmed vs. Prime Minister
	Since our last presentation before the committee, in 2001, major developments in the implementation of the Convention against Torture have taken place in Israel – both in terms of law and practice – developments, which I wish to present today. 
Before I illustrate these developments, I wish to remind the Committee of the Supreme Court's ruling of 1999, concerning the use of physical means of interrogation. The Court decided in no uncertain terms that the Israeli Security Agency (the ISA), has no authority under Israeli law to use physical means of interrogations against terrorist suspects. In its judgment, the Court emphasized as follows, and I quote: 
According to the existing state of the law, neither the government nor the heads of security services possess the authority to establish directives and bestow authorization regarding the use of liberty infringing physical means during the interrogation of suspects suspected of hostile terrorist activities, beyond the general directives which can be inferred from the very concept of an interrogation. Similarly, the individual ISA investigator – like any police officer – does not possess the authority to employ physical means which infringe upon a suspect's liberty during the interrogation, unless these means are inherently accessory to the very essence of an interrogation and are both fair and reasonable.
	Furthermore, the court held:
[A] reasonable investigation is necessarily one free of torture, free of cruel, inhuman treatment of the subject and free of any degrading handling whatsoever. There is a prohibition on the use of 'brutal or inhuman means' in the course of an investigation. Human dignity also includes the dignity of the suspect being interrogated… These prohibitions are 'absolute'. There are no exceptions to them and there is no room for balancing. Indeed, violence directed at a suspect's body or spirit does not constitute a reasonable investigation practice. 
Following this significant decision, the Landau Rules – the guidelines regarding the use of force during ISA interrogation – were annulled and the Court ruling was implemented immediately. 
Israeli Security Agency Law
One of the most significant developments that I wish to present today is the enactment of the Israel Security Agency Law (5762-2000). This law addresses the major relevant issues concerning the mandate, operation, and scope of functioning of the ISA, and following the Supreme Court's ruling - the law does not authorize the ISA interrogators to use physical force during interrogations. 
Section 7 of the law details the mission of the Agency, as follows:
The Agency shall be in charge of the protection of State security and the order and institutions of the democratic regime against threats of terrorism, sabotage, subversion, espionage and disclosure of State secrets; and the Agency shall also act to safeguard and promote other State interests vital for national State security, all as prescribed by the Government and subject to every law.
The law provides that the Prime Minister shall be in charge of the ISA on behalf of the Government; no mission shall be imposed on the ISA for the promotion of party-political interests.
The law also establishes a Ministerial Committee that supervises the ISA and operates in matters prescribed. The law also determines that a Ministerial Committee (the secret services committee) will supervise the ISA. Furthermore, the State Comptroller and the Ministry of Justice supervise certain aspects of the ISA's operations. 
Section 12 compels routine reports of the head of the ISA to the Ministerial Committee and to the Knesset Service Affairs Committee, from time to time and no less than every three months, on the activity of the Agency. Special reports shall be submitted to these Committees, at their request, pursuant to rules prescribed.
Section 13 to the law also affixes an agency comptroller, to be appointed by the Prime Minister in consultation with the head of the ISA. The Comptroller submits an annual report on his findings, and any periodic report made by him, to the head of the ISA, the Ministerial Committee, and the Knesset Service Affairs Committee.
To sum up, today, unlike before, there is a law which explicitly defines the ISA's responsibilities and limitations very clearly, and the law stipulates that several bodies supervise it. 
Exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence (Yisascharov)
Another major development is the Supreme Court's landmark decision from May 2006, laying down a court-made doctrine on the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence – the Yisascharov case – (C.A. 5121/98, Prv. Yisascharov v. The Head Military Prosecutor et. al.). This decision relates to a soldier who was investigated by Military Police and was not advised of his right to legal counsel prior to his interrogation, and the court held that it affects the admissibility of his confession while under interrogation. 
The Court held that: 
[a]chieving justice is also based on the manner by which the court reaches a decision under the circumstances of the case before it. Basing an indictment on evidence obtained unlawfully or through the substantial violation of a protected human right, allows the investigation bodies to enjoy the fruit of their sin and may create an incentive for improper investigation methods in the future…under appropriate circumstances, substantial illegality in obtaining the evidence, shall lead to its exclusion, even if there is no suspicion as to the veracity of its content.   
In this case, the Court adopted a relative exclusion doctrine, according to which the court may rule on the inadmissibility of evidence on the basis of the manner by which it was obtained, if two conditions are fulfilled: (1) the evidence was obtained unlawfully; and (2) admission of the evidence will harm the defendant significantly in regard to his right to due process, in a way and to an extent which is not in accordance with the limitation paragraph of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty.
This judgment also examined section 12 of the Evidence Ordinance (new Version), 5731 – 1971. While the Court did not rule on automatic exclusion of the defendant's confession on these grounds, it held that the said section should be interpreted more widely on the basis of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. According to this holding, a wider array of circumstances may now justify excluding confessions on the basis of section 12.   
Prisoners and Detainees Rights
There are several major developments, concerning prisoners and detainees rights that have taken place in Israel in the last years. Before I present these developments, I would like to point out that every complaint alleging inappropriate treatment towards prisoners and detainees is investigated and seriously considered by the competent authorities, and if there is legal basis, criminal or disciplinary procedures are taken. Decisions that determine that such procedures do not fit the specific case may undergo judiciary review.
Bed to every Prisoner
On February 12, 2007, the Supreme Court held that the State must provide a bed to every prisoner held in an Israeli prison (HCJ 4634/04 Physicians for human rights et. al. v. The Minister of Public Security, et.al.). In its decision, the Court stated that the right to sleep on a bed is a basic condition for living in dignity, based on the right to dignity anchored in Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. 
The State claimed that the deterioration of the security situation in Israel since October 2000, caused an increased number of detainees and prisoners held in Israeli prisons, thus the Israel Prisons Service (hereinafter: IPS) failed to provide a bed to every prisoner. Instead, only a mattress on the floor was provided due to a serious lack of incarceration facilities. Nevertheless, the State did not object to the petitioners' claim that a prisoner's right to sleep on a bed is an integral part of one's basic right to dignity, but requested that the Court recognize possible limitations which might prevent full implementation of the principle of bed to every prisoner, especially in unforeseen times of emergency. 
The state's position was not accepted, and the Court stated that when on the one side of the balance equation rests the right of a person to minimal life standards when held in prison, a contradictory value with a special significance is necessary in order to justify damage to this basic right.
In its decision, the Court also referred to Article 7 of the ICCPR, stating that No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and to Article 10(1) stating that All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. The Court pointed out that the UN Human Rights Committee determined, considering Article 10(1) of the ICCPR, that the dignity of persons deprived of their liberty should be ensured subject to the restrictions that are unavoidable in a closed environment.  
The IPS fully adheres to this provision.   
Criminal Procedure (Investigation of Suspects) Law
The second development concerning prisoners' rights is the enactment of the Criminal Procedure (Investigation of Suspects) Law 5762-2002. This law states that investigations of suspects must be recorded, and this principle is gradually implemented by the Police, according to the type of offence in every case. 
It should be noted, that in the last couple of years, police investigators and investigation officers underwent training, as part of the implementation of the law.
Also, to date, the Courts never found cause to release a suspect from custody due to prohibited conduct of investigators, and there are no records of cases in which such misconduct was recorded during investigations. 
The authority of IPS over most of Israeli detention facilities
Lately, the IPS was appointed as the Authority in charge of the large majority of Israeli detention facilities (some of which were formerly controlled by the military and the Police). Therefore, almost only IPS personnel, who are trained for this particular job, are in charge of prisoners and detainees. 
Up to this day, seven detention facilities were transferred from the Police to the IPS, and four detention facilities were transferred from the IDF to the IPS – a total of 6,152 prison cells for prisoners and detainees were transferred from the IDF and the Police to the IPS. 
Also, in full recognition of the importance of the subject, the IDF has been striving continuously to improve incarceration conditions in the few detention facilities that remain under its responsibility.
Inspector for the Complaints within ISA + Department for Investigation of Police Officers
As detailed in Israel's previous reports, complaints against ISA personnel alleging the use of unlawful investigation techniques are dealt with by the Inspector for the Complaints against  ISA Interrogators (hereinafter, the Inspector). 
The head of this unit is granted with the authority of a disciplinary investigator. The Inspector functions independently, as no member of the ISA has the authority to interfere with its findings.
The Inspector functions under the close supervision of a high-ranking prosecutor from the State Attorney’s Office. Additionally, following a full examination of the complaints, the Inspector's report is thoroughly reviewed by the above-mentioned prosecutor and in cases in which the issues at hand are sensitive or circumstances so necessitate, also by the Attorney General and the State Attorney.   
A decision is made regarding the complaint, by the Attorney General, the State Attorney and the prosecutor, following a thorough examination of the Inspector's findings. The decision is an administrative one, subject to the judicial review of the Supreme Court sitting as High Court of Justice.
In addition, if a suspicion arises – that a criminal offence was committed during ISA interrogations – the Department for Investigation of Police Officers is authorized to investigate it, independently. 
In 2004, section 49I1 of the Police Ordinance was amended, expanding the Department for Investigation of Police Officers' scope of authority over ISA interrogators. Their expanded authority of review now applies to every criminal offence committed in the course of fulfilling the ISA interrogators' undertaking, or in relation with their undertaking. This scope was previously limited to criminal offences committed in the course of an interrogation, or with regard to a detainee in custody awaiting interrogation, and was recently broadened, so that every suspicion of a criminal offence committed by an ISA personnel, while in duty, is investigated by the Department.
Up to this day, four cases, examined by the Inspector, resulted in disciplinary measures, and several cases resulted in general remarks to ISA interrogators.  
Cooperation with NGOs, UN committees and rapporteurs 
Israel is proud to have a very active civil society which plays an important role in monitoring the protection of human rights in Israel. Israel recognizes the importance and the value of maintaining dialogue with civil society, and in many of its reports to Treaty Bodies and other international human rights fora, Israel engages in preparatory dialogue and exchanges of views with relevant NGOs.  NGOs' representatives have also been invited to participate as members of Israel's delegations to international forums, such as during the negotiation process leading to the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 
The Government also works with NGOs in conducting human rights education campaigns and training programs, for example in its struggle against trafficking in persons. NGO representatives sit on boards of the Commission for the Advancement of the Status of Women and the Commission on the Rights of Person with Disabilities. 
In addition, officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice engage in an ongoing dialogue with representatives of academia and human rights NGOs, in round tables and joint conferences, in order to encourage public debate and exchange of views in the follow-up process to Israel's periodic reports to the UN treaty bodies. 
Visits by Inmates Families and by the Red-Cross 
The State of Israel acknowledges the importance of family visits, and as clarified in the Diria case: The State does not dispute the inmates' right to receive family visits. Therefore, the State enabled and enables these visits, despite the many security and administrative difficulties involved. 
It should be emphasized, that inmates' family visits are performed as a regular procedure, where a request is filed to the Civil Administration, and, in most cases, is approved after a short time and visits are performed in a continuous manner. Sometimes, due to security needs, the visits are temporarily stopped. 
In recent years, over 4,000 permits were granted per month and over 20,000 visits were held each month, from the different districts, to their relatives incarcerated in Israel and the area, and this, as stated before, is facilitated through the International Red Cross organization. 
Most of the requests are approved, and only a small minority is refused for security grounds.
I would like to note that an extensive administrative work was done and continues to take place to create the above mentioned mechanisms, a complicated administrative work, that by its nature, encountered difficult labor pains until its completion. Nevertheless, the relevant factors continue to perform an administrative work in this matter to improve and perfect these mechanisms. 
Red-Cross Visits
Visits by the Red-Cross to prisoners and detainees take place regularly. The Israeli authorities work tightly, on everyday basis, with the Red-Cross delegation to Israel, and basically, every request by the Red-Cross to visit prisoners and detainees is approved by the Israeli authorities. Hence, hundreds of visits in Israeli detention facilities by the Red-Cross representatives take place every year, and thousands of prisoners and detainees receive these visits. 
The Committee's Concluding Observations
With regard to the Committee's concluding observations following Israel's previous presentation, Israel examined and re-examined the recommendations and concluding observations in depth and applied many of them. The relevant issues were detailed in the periodic report and I wish to mention several examples: 
Concerning the Committee's recommendation to anchor in Israeli legislation the prohibition against torture, we would like to reiterate that, as detailed in Israel's first report, this prohibition is stipulated in Section 277 of the Penal Law, accordingly:
277. Oppression by public servant. 
A public servant who does one of the following is liable to imprisonment for three years: 
(1) uses or directs the use of force or violence against a person for the purpose of extorting from him or from anyone in whom he is interested a confession of an offence or information relating to an offence; 
(2) threatens any person, or directs any person to be threatened, with injury to his person or property or to the person or property of anyone in whom he is interested for the purpose of extorting from him a confession of an offence or any information relating to an offence. 
This prohibition is also anchored in some other sections of the Israeli Penal Law.
In the context of the exclusion of confession extorted by torture, on May 2006, the Supreme Court rendered a landmark decision, laying down a court-made doctrine for the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence. (C.A. 5121/98, Prv. Yisascharov v. The Head Military Prosecutor et. al.).
As it pertains to the Committee's expressed concern that persons subjected to torture must be entitled to compensation, Israeli law recognizes this right and the courts have granted compensation to several applicants in this regard. 
With regard to the Committee's concerns of effective complaint, investigative and prosecution mechanisms relating to the provision of the convention -  such mechanisms exist in the relevant law enforcement authorities, as detailed in Israel's fourth periodic report. 
Concerning cases alleging Police misconduct – these cases are examined by the Department for Investigation of Police Officers in the Ministry of Justice and are handled with great severity. 

With regard to cases regarding the ISA - since the Supreme Court handed down its decision concerning the investigation methods of the ISA, only a few petitions have been submitted to the High Court of Justice challenging investigation methods. This small amount of filed petitions stands in stark contrast to the hundreds of petitions filed annually with similar allegations before the ruling was given. It must be noted that even in this small amount of cases it was not held by the Court that illegal means of investigation were used. 
With regard to the Israel Prisons Service (IPS), every prisoner or detainee under the care of the IPS has several complaint mechanisms regarding the staff and wardens' use of force. Such mechanisms include the filing a complaint to the director of the prison, petitioning the relevant District Court in a prisoner's petition, filing a complaint to the Warden's Investigation Unit, etc.
On the issue of training and education, it should be stressed that the Convention is incorporated in the basic and routine training of all members of the security forces – the Police, the IDF, the Israeli Prisons Service and the ISA. 
Conclusion
To sum up, we have reviewed several of the major developments that took place in Israel during the last years – in Courts' rulings and Legislation – in aspects that are relevant to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 
The Legislation that set the ISA's authorities, limitations and supervision; the prohibition of the use of physical force and torture during ISA interrogations, set by the Supreme Court; the judicial rule, that unlawfully obtained evidence is not admissible, no matter if there is no doubt that it is true; the Court's ruling that concludes that the State must provide a bed for every prisoner – these and others are all actions that Israel took in the last few years, in order to implement the Convention against Torture and other conventions. 
Since Israel is a Democratic State, that deeply appreciates human rights, we are obligated to cooperate with the UN and we will continue to make the efforts in order to act according to the principles of the Convention. 
Israel has made a candid effort to provide the committee with a comprehensive and professional response to the extensive List of Issues presented to us.  I hope this response will assist the Committee in assessing Israel’s conduct and compliance with this important Convention.
Thank you.











 17



Þ Ó Ù à ê   Ù é è Ð Ü
ÞéèÓ ÔÞéäØÙÝ