Un-Official Translation (from the Hebrew)
Al Dirani's Claim for Compensation for Torture Translated By Amnesty International |
|
In the District Court of Tel-Aviv - Jaffa TA /2000 The Plaintiff: Mustafa Dib Mar'i Dirani Represented by: Adv. Zvi Rish Of 5a Masaryck Str. - versus - The Defendant: The State of Israel Statement of Claim 1. The Plaintiff is a citizen of Lebanon, who in the month of May 1994 was abducted by IDF soldiers from his home in the village Ksarnaba in the Lebanon Valley, and was brought to Israel. From that time until the present the Plaintiff has been held in Israel under administrative detention without trial. 2. Immediately after he was brought to Israel, the Plaintiff wasplaced in an interrogation facility for the purpose of extracting from him information relating to the missing Israeli navigator Ron Arad. 3. In the course of his interrogation, which lasted about one month,the Plaintiff was subjected to tortures which greatly exceeded the "regular" mistreatment with which the public at large has become familiar, especially following the ruling on High Court of Justice 5100/94 The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel vs. The Government of Israel (not yet published). 4. In addition to being shaken, humiliations, beatings, sleep deprivation and being tied in a crouching position for many hours to the point of his limbs becoming paralyzed - a cruel rape and an act of sodomy were perpetrated against the Plaintiff by a soldier whom the interrogators brought especially for this purpose. 5. In addition, several days after the Plaintiff was raped by a soldier, the interrogator who was responsible for the rape once again committed a horrifying act of sodomy against the Plaintiff, by inserting a wooden club into the Plaintiff's anus, causing hemorrhages in his buttocks. The pseudonym of that interrogator was "George". 6. Despite the hemorrhages that were caused to the Plaintiff as the result of inserting the wooden club into his anus, he was denied medical treatment - only several days later was the Plaintiff brought to a physician, who gave him a cream to ease his pains, while pointedly avoiding asking him about the reasons that led to the hemorrhage in his anus. 7. In order to humiliate the Plaintiff, the interrogators caused him to remain completely naked for almost the entire duration of the interrogations that they conducted. In order to compound the humiliation of the Plaintiff and to the delight of his interrogators - they also photographed him in this humiliating situation. 8. At a later stage of the interrogation the Plaintiff was forced to drink large amounts of water and paraffin oil. At that point a diaper was placed around the Plaintiff's loins in which his bodily wastes collected for several days. There was no response to the pleas of the Plaintiff, who was covered with his discharges, to be allowed to clean himself, and only when the interrogators themselves could no longer stand the stench, only then was the Plaintiff allowed to change the diaper. 9. Appallingly, compared to the rape and the sodomy to which the Plaintiff was subjected, all of the other harsh tortures that were used against him (shaking, humiliation, beatings, sleep deprivation, tying that paralyzed limbs and similar atrocities) - appear to be meaningless. ON THE DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEFENDANT FOR THE ATROCITIES THAT WERE COMMITTED AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF 10. The Plaintiff claims, that in no event could there have been justification for the interrogators on behalf of the Defendant to employ against any detainee horrifying methods of torture, mistreatment and obscene acts and a crime such as rape and sodomy. This claim was recently given resolute expression in High Court of Justice 5100/94 The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel vs. The Government of Israel (not yet published). 11. There is no contending, that the Plaintiff, as a person who held a senior position in the organization that had held Ron Arad for some time after his plane crashed in Lebanon, was brought to Israel to serve as a bargaining chip in the matter of Ron Arad, as well as for the purpose of attempting to extract from him details about the fate of the missing navigator. However, even the desire to receive information about Ron Arad cannot justify outright sadism as was shown in the series of severe tortures that were perpetrated against the Plaintiff. 12. It should be stressed, that at the time that the Plaintiff was tortured in the Defendant's interrogation facilities, it was already well known to the Defendant, that for six years Ron Arad had not been held by the organization to which the Plaintiff had belonged. In these circumstances, there cannot be even an attempt to justify the terrible tortures and mistreatments that were perpetrated against the Plaintiff by claiming that he was a "ticking bomb," and it is impossible to argue any "need" and/or "necessity" whatsoever. This was, therefore, plain and simple vengeance for the Plaintiff having at one stage held Ron Arad. 13. Thus, in the name of the desire to take revenge against the Plaintiff, acts were committed against him under the auspices of the Defendant and/or with the knowledge of same and/or with the approval of same and/or with same turning a blind eye, that according to any standard are considered to be shocking crimes. Therefore, the Defendant must be seen as a full partner in the following series of crimes: A. The offense of rape under severe circumstances according to Article 345 of the Penal Code - 1977, combined with the offense of sodomy in the terms of Article 347 (b-c). B. The offense of aggravated assault in the terms of Article 382 of the Penal Code. C. Assault Against a Helpless Person in the terms of Article 368 C of the Penal Code. D. Aggravated Intentional Harm in the terms of Article 329 of the Penal Code. 14. The torture of the Plaintiff, the severe abuse that he underwent, including the rape and the commission of an act of sodomy against his person, constitute a long list of civil torts towards the Plaintiff, as follows: 15. The tort of assault according to Article 23 of the Torts Ordinance (New Version) - 1968, while the acts that were perpetrated by the Defendant and/or by its agents against the Plaintiff constitute aggravated assault against the Plaintiff through exploiting the fact that he was in the hands of the Defendant without the ability to defend himself as against the cruel acts that were committed against him. 16. A tort by power of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom - the acts of the Defendant against the Plaintiff include a grave violation of his basic right to dignity and to physical integrity as set forth in Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom. The Plaintiff will ask the honorable Court to consider this violation of the obligation to safeguard his dignity and his right to physical integrity to be an independent damage tort (and not only a violation of a legislated obligation by power of Article 63, which will be addressed in Paragraph 17(C) hereinbelow). 17. Violation of a Legislated Duty according to Article 63 of the Torts Ordinance - the legislated provisions that were violated were each of the following: A. All of the legislation deriving from the Penal Code as set forth in Paragraph 13 hereinabove.B. A grave violation of the undertakings of the Defendant by power of international treaties that have become binding internal law after being signed and ratified by the Defendant. These are the international treaties: (1) The Treaty Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Humiliating Punishments (21, 1039 vol. 31 on page 249). The Defendant signed the said treaty on 22.10.66 and ratified same on 4.8.91. (2) Article 7 of the International Treaty Concerning the Rights of Citizens and States (21, 1040, vol. 31, page 269). The Defendant signed the said treaty on 19.12.66 and ratified same on 19.8.91. (3) Article E of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. The said Declaration has long been recognized in rulings as part of the binding internal laws in Israel. C. A grave violation of the fundamental right of the Plaintiff to dignity and physical integrity as provided in Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom. 18. The Offense of "Willfully Causing Damage" according to Article 64 of the Torts Ordinance. ON THE VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT FOR THE ATROCITIES THAT WERE COMMITTED AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF 19. Alternately, in the event that the Defendant will claim that it did not know and/or did not approve the tortures that were committed against the Plaintiff, even then it has wronged him, as is set forth hereinbelow: 20. The Defendant is the party that initiated and implemented the abduction of the Plaintiff from Lebanon to Israel, both for the purpose of extracting from him information about Ron Arad and in order to serve as a bargaining chip in his matter. The late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin himself announced in the media that the Plaintiff had been brought to Israel for these purposes, and the entire affair earned immense media coverage. 21. In these circumstances, it is obvious that the Defendant knew well, and alternately - should have known, that its agencies, which were holding the Plaintiff and interrogating him, would do everything in their power to extract from him information concerning Ron Arad, and therefore it knew or should have known about the prohibited interrogation methods that were being used against the Plaintiff. 22. Alternately - in the event that the Defendant did not know and did not explicitly or implicitly approve the interrogations methods that were described hereinabove, including the rape and the act of sodomy that were perpetrated against the Plaintiff, indeed it was negligent in supervising the interrogators acting on its behalf, both by not explicitly forbidding the use of interrogation methods that included rape and sodomy, by not properly monitoring the manner in which the Plaintiff was interrogated, and by not properly instructing the interrogators on how to perform their job without using methods of action that included rape and sodomy. 23. From the very fact that other interrogators, who also accompanied the interrogation of the Plaintiff, did not prevent George, the interrogator who caused the rape of the Plaintiff and the insertion of the wooden club into his anus, from carrying out his evil deed - it arises, that the State was negligent by not providing proper instruction to the other interrogators concerning preventing a fellow interrogator from crossing red lines and/or did not properly instruct them to immediately inform their superiors about the interrogation methods that were used by the interrogator against the Plaintiff. 24. Alternately - in the event that the said interrogation methods (including the rape and the insertion of the wooden club into the Plaintiff's anus) were reported to the interrogator's superiors - indeed the Defendant was negligent in preventing the continuation of the interrogator's criminal actions or in explicitly or implicitly consenting to same, in which case it was an accomplice in assaulting the Plaintiff and in his torture, as was set forth in the chapter addressing the Defendant's direct liability. 25. Alternately - the Defendant was negligent by not brining to trial all of the people who were responsible for the tortures in the claim that were perpetrated against the Plaintiff by agents on its behalf. 26. The Defendant was negligent, by act or by omission, in protecting the right of the Plaintiff to physical integrity and in [seeing to it] that the State treat him for the duration of his interrogation according to the customary norms in civilized states. These norms have been set forth, among other means, in the international treaties that were specified in Paragraph 17 (B) hereinabove. 27. The Plaintiff will argue, that in the circumstances of this matter, the burden of proof for the existence of the aforesaid in Paragraphs 20-26 hereinabove should be placed with the Defendant, by means of applying the rule of "the matter speaks for itself" according to Article 41 of the Torts Ordinance. For the Plaintiff has no knowledge and has no ability to know what were in fact the circumstances that caused the event that led to the damage. Indeed, the damage was caused by persons over whom the Defendant has full control, and there is nothing in the circumstances of this shocking affair to determine that the events that caused the damage are more compatible with the conclusion that the Defendant did not employ reasonable caution than with the conclusion that it employed reasonable caution. ON COMPENSATING THE PLAINTIFF 28. To the best of our knowledge, there is no precedent to such a terrible affair. The Defendant and its agents did not stop at employing such horrifying methods as raping the Plaintiff and perpetrating criminal acts of sodomy. There is no patriotic justification whatsoever, nor should there be any, for the infamous and evil deeds that were done to the Plaintiff. The Defendant must maintain its image and reputation even, and perhaps especially, when the spirit of vengeance arises and roars. 29. There is no amount in the world that will compensate the Plaintiff for the grave violation of his rights and for the terrible violation of his dignity. No monetary compensation will alleviate his suffering that was caused by the humiliation, the pains, the tortures, the trampling underfoot of his dignity, the humiliation of the human spirit, the emotional and physical damage that was caused to him by the systematic torture, mistreatment, the rape and the sodomy that were perpetrated against him. 30. Nevertheless, since what was done cannot be undone, all that is left to the Plaintiff is to claim monetary compensation both for the terrible damage that was caused to him and for the violation of his constitutional rights. Therefore, the Plaintiff estimates the terrible damage that was done to him at the amount of NIS 6,000,000, and he asks the Court to order the Defendant to pay him damages in the said amount. 31. This Honorable Court has the local and relevant authority to address this claim. 32. As an aside, the Plaintiff hereby informs the Honorable Court, as provided in Article 352 (B) of the Penal Code, that in light of the obvious public interest in this sorry affair, he hereby agrees to publicizing the entire affair, including publicly exposing his name. In light of the above, the Honorable Court is requested to summon the Defendant to trial, and to order same to compensate the Plaintiff in the amount of NIS 6,000,000. In addition, the Honorable Court is requested to order the Defendant to pay trial costs, including lawyers' fees and lawful VAT. (signed) Zvi Rish, Adv. Attorney for the Plaintiff |