TORTURE AND ILL-TREATMENT

Copyright © June 1994 by Human Rights Watch.
 

The principal writer and researcher of this report is James Ron, a consultant to Human Rights Watch/Middle East. Eric Goldstein, research director of Human Rights Watch/Middle East, researched and wrote several sections, and was the principal editor. Cynthia Brown, program director of Human Rights Watch, was the final editor. Consultant Walid Batrawi gave valuable help and guidance in the field. Fatemeh Ziai, the Orville Schell Fellow with Human Rights Watch, provided research on international law. Human Rights Watch/Middle East Associate Suzanne Howard and Human Rights Watch Associate Bettye Payne were responsible for the production, and Elizabeth Wilcox and Bryce Giddens helped with copy editing. The illustrations in this report were prepared by JFRA Design of Ramallah.

Of the many human rights attorneys who provided guidance on Israeli law and the military courts, five deserve special mention: Eliahu Avram and Tamar Pelleg-Sryck of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Shlomo Lecker, Ali Naouq, and Lea Tsemel. Lisa Hajjar and Melissa Phillips read drafts and gave extensive and valuable suggestions.

This report would not have been possible without the assistance of several human rights organizations, although responsibility for the findings rest solely with Human Rights Watch. Emma Naughton, of Birzeit University's Human Rights Project, shared data and helped to arrange meetings with ex-detainees. Al-Haq, the Ramallah-based affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists, and B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, furnished data, assistance in the field, and advice.

Other groups that helped include the Palestinian Lawyers for Human Rights (Khan Yunis), the Association of Israeli-Palestinian Physicians for Human Rights (Tel Aviv), the Mandela Institute for Political Prisoners (Ramallah), and the House of Right and Law (Gaza City).

While disappointed that our requests to visit interrogation wings of IDF and GSS detention facilities were refused or ignored, Human Rights Watch appreciates the time that Israeli authorities took to meet with us and to reply to our frequent requests for information. These include officials in the IDF Spokesman's Office and Judge Advocate-General's Corps.

Finally, Human Rights Watch would like to thank the former Palestinian detainees who took the time to recount their experiences in detail, and the Israeli soldiers who shared their experiences working in detention facilities.

Israel's two main interrogation agencies in the occupied territories engage in a systematic pattern of ill-treatment and torture - according to internationally recognized definitions of the terms - when trying to extract from Palestinian security suspects confessions or information about third parties. This pattern has continued in 1994, despite the peace process now underway.

Israel's ill-treatment of Palestinians under interrogation is notable for the enormous number of persons who have experienced it. Well over 100,000 Palestinians have been detained since the start of the intifada in December 1987. Of those arrested, reliable sources indicate that some 4,000 to 6,000 are subjected to interrogation each year. The figures appear to have declined only slightly during the first quarter of 1994.

The overriding strategy of Israel's interrogation agencies in getting uncooperative detainees to talk is to subject them to a coordinated, rigid and increasingly painful regime of physical constraints and psychological pressures over days and very often for three or four weeks, during which time the detainees are, almost without exception, denied visits by their lawyers and families. These measures seriously taint the voluntariness of the confessions that they help to bring about, and therefore, compromise the fundamental fairness of the military courts that try Palestinians in the occupied territories.

The methods used in nearly all interrogations are prolonged sleep deprivation; prolonged sight deprivation using blindfolds or tight-fitting hoods; forced, prolonged maintenance of body positions that grow increasingly painful; and verbal threats and insults.

These methods are almost always combined with some of the following abuses: confinement in tiny, closet-like spaces; exposure to temperature extremes, such as in deliberately overcooled rooms; prolonged toilet and hygiene deprivation; and degrading treatment, such as forcing detainees to eat and use the toilet at the same time. In a large number of cases, detainees are also moderately or severely beaten by their interrogators.

Israeli interrogations consistently use methods in combination with one another, over long periods of time. Thus, a detainee in the custody of the General Security Service (GSS) may spend weeks during which, except for brief respites, he shuttles from a tiny chair to which he is painfully shackled; to a stifling, tiny cubicle in which he can barely move; to

questioning sessions in which he is beaten or violently manhandled; and then back to the chair.

The intensive, sustained, and combined use of these methods inflicts the severe mental or physical suffering that is central to internationally accepted definitions of torture.

Israel's political leadership cannot claim ignorance that ill-treatment is the norm in interrogation centers. The number of victims is too large, and the abuses are too systematic. Official acquiescence is indicated also by the extreme infrequency with which abuses are punished, and the fact that the classified guidelines for GSS interrogators actually permit, under certain circumstances, the use of "moderate" physical pressure to obtain information. Since 1988, there has been only one case in which GSS interrogators were jailed for abusing a detainee under interrogation.

There are further obstacles to accountability for abuse:

· Many prison doctors and paramedics, in violation of the ethics of their profession, tend to serve the interests of the interrogation agency more than they serve the health interests of the detainee. Rather than ensuring that their patients are not subjected to illegal or health-endangering ill-treatment, these medical personnel tend to intervene in the interrogation process only in order to avert permanent injuries or deaths; and

· Palestinian defendants seeking to use the available legal procedure to challenge the voluntariness, and thus, the admissibility, of their confessions, face delays, pressures and obstacles that prejudice this important right.

The abuses documented in this report took place between 1992 and 1994. Comparing this period to interrogations during earlier years, as they were documented by other human rights organizations, some trends emerge:

· The GSS now resorts less frequently to beatings while relying more extensively on sustained psychological pressures and physical pressures, such as shackling detainees in contorted body positions, which fall short of direct violence but cause severe suffering nonetheless; and

· IDF interrogations have become more standardized: beating is still the norm, but instances of extreme violence are less common.

Despite these trends, the interrogation practices of both agencies continue to constitute a pattern of torture.

Human Rights Watch calls on the government of Israel to end the practice of torture and ill-treatment of detainees under interrogation, by adhering to and enforcing the provisions of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture). Israel acceded to the Convention in 1991. Under Article 2, Israel is obliged to take "effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture." To fulfill that obligation, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and his government should:

· Enact domestic enabling legislation that makes the Convention against Torture enforceable in Israeli courts;

· Publicly state that the provisions of the Convention apply to the conduct of all state agents in the occupied territories;

· Make public all existing guidelines relating to the use of pressure during interrogation, including the secret appendix to the Landau Commission report and subsequent modifications of it, so that their compliance with international standards and Israeli domestic law can be assessed;

· Revoke those clauses of the GSS interrogation guidelines that permit the use of physical force despite its prohibition in Israel's Penal Code; and

· Review and revise the regulations and practices surrounding investigative detention so as to strengthen safeguards against abuse. The measures taken should include:

Providing the suspect with information at time of arrest: Regulations should be implemented requiring that any individual being taken into custody be informed of the reasons for arrest and the location to which he or she is being taken. At the request of the arrested person, his or her family should be provided promptly with this information.

Faster judicial review of detention: To protect against arbitrary detention, detainees in the occupied territories, like detainees in Israel, should be brought before a judge within forty-eight hours, instead of the current maximum of eight or eighteen days, depending on the nature of the case. The judge must assess the lawfulness and necessity of thedetention, as well as the treatment received by the detainee, and authorize any continuation of detention.

Faster access to defense counsel: To ensure that their rights are protected throughout the investigative and judicial process, detainees must be provided with prompt access to a lawyer. Deprivation of this right should be exceptional rather than the norm; and in all cases the detainee's lawyer should be notified immediately that the detainee has been denied this right, so that the lawyer can challenge its denial before the courts. Defense lawyers should be given adequate notice of the dates of their clients' extension-of-detention hearing, and should have the opportunity to confer with the client before the hearing, and to represent the client at the hearing.

End anonymity of interrogation staff: To enable detainees to identify alleged abusers, all interrogators, medical and other staff coming into contact with detainees under interrogation should wear badges bearing their name and/or identification number.

Give content to the right to challenge confessions: Steps should be taken to ensure that defendants who wish to show in court that their confession was not given voluntarily are not penalized for exercising this right by prolonged pre-trial detention or a punitive sentence. Prosecutors should be forbidden from suggesting that a stiffer sentence will be sought against defendants who persist in challenging their confessions. Judges should investigate rigorously any evidence of torture or ill-treatment of defendants that comes to their attention, regardless of whether a complaint is made.

Investigate abuses promptly, impartially and publicly: Allegations of abuse should be investigated promptly and thoroughly, and details of the methodology and findings of such investigations should be made public. Any official found responsible must be brought to justice, and the punishment in each case should be disclosed.

Open interrogation wings to outside monitors: All wings of detention and incarceration facilities and prisons should be subject to periodic visits by non-governmental bodies, including human-rights organizations.

Require prison physicians to report evidence of abuse: End the complicity of doctors and paramedics in torture and ill-treatment by passing legislation requiring physicians to report to the proper authorities any suspicion that an injury or condition they have diagnosed may have been caused by the action of a public servant. Medical personnel should be informed of the interrogation methods in use in their facility, so that (1) they can be held to their professional ethical obligation not to participate in a process of certifying the fitness of detainees to undergo methods that constitute torture or ill-treatment; and (2) they can intervene effectively when the health of the detainee warrants restrictions on interrogation.

Finally, Human Rights Watch applauds the strong condemnation by the Israel Medical Association in 1993 of the medical "fitness-for-interrogation" form that had apparently been in use at Tulkarm prison. We urge the IMA to continue to investigate allegations concerning physicians at interrogation centers who are implicated in torture and ill-treatment, and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against any doctors found guilty of such involvement.

As Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization take steps toward implementing self-rule for Palestinians in the occupied territories, the need to improve respect for human rights in the region is greater than ever. Progress beyond the interim agreement depends in part on persuading Palestinians living in the occupied lands that the new arrangements are bringing improvements in their lives, including in the realm of human rights.

Even if the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip and Jericho proceeds as planned, Israel will continue to exercise direct rule over the majority of Palestinians who live outside these areas, and, will retain responsibility throughout the territories "for overall security of Israelis for the purpose of safeguarding their internal security and public order," according to the Declaration of Principles signed on September 13, 1993.

As an active supporter of the Israeli-PLO peace process, the U.S. should use its influence with both parties to promote respect for human rights as the negotiating process moves forward. In its dealings with the government of Israel, the PLO and Palestinian interim authorities, Washington must stress that a tangiblereduction in human rights violations can build much-needed confidence in the process.

Israel's systematic torture and ill-treatment of Palestinians under interrogation is an issue that the U.S. administration should urgently confront, not only because torture has not disappeared with the signing of the Declaration of Principles, but also because it calls into question the very legality of American military and economic aid to Israel, which, at over $3 billion per year, makes Israel the largest recipient by far of U.S. bilateral assistance.

U.S. law prohibits the government from providing military or economic aid to any government that engages in systematic torture. Section 502(B) of the Foreign Assistance Act covers security aid, and a parallel provision in Section 116 covers economic aid. Section 502(B) states:

Except under circumstances specified in this section, no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. Security assistance may not be provided to the police, domestic intelligence, or similar law enforcement forces of a country, and licenses may not be issued under the Export Administration Act of 1979 for the export of crime control and detection instruments and equipment to a country, the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights....The term "gross violations of internationally recognized human rights" includes torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges and trial, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons, and other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty or the security of person.

Section 502(B) permits aid to flow to an abusive government only if the president certifies in writing to Congress "that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting provision of such assistance and issuance of such licenses."

Human Rights Watch urges the U.S. administration to address Israel's systematic use of torture against Palestinians under interrogation through both enhanced public reporting and enhanced advocacy. We urge the administration to:

· State publicly that Israeli practices during the interrogation of Palestinians amount to systematic torture, and that one of the two state bodies mostresponsible for the torture of Palestinians under interrogation is the Israel Defense Forces, which is the main beneficiary of $1.8 billion in U.S. security aid to Israel annually;

· Inform the government of Israel that future aid levels will depend on palpable progress toward curbing these abuses; and

· Request from the government of Israel a progress report on the steps taken to curtail such practices, including specific information about the measures taken against abusive personnel.

If the pattern of torture continues, the U.S. should either suspend aid or explain publicly the extraordinary circumstances that necessitate its continuation, as required by U.S. law.

A public U.S. intervention on torture is needed particularly because of the way that the government of Israel has sought to frame the debate. In contrast to abusive governments that flatly deny any pattern of coercion, Israel acknowledges permitting psychological and physical coercion but claims that these measures are strictly monitored so as never to rise to the level of ill-treatment or torture. This claim calls out for a public affirmation by the U.S. that Israel's well-documented interrogation practices do amount to impermissible torture and ill-treatment, just as the International Committee of the Red Cross has denounced them as violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The State Department failed this challenge in the most recent Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, even while thoroughly cataloguing the prevalent forms of coercion used on detainees under interrogation.1 By omitting the extent to which these methods are used in common with one another, and over what lengths of time, the State Department allows Israeli claims to stand that the methods of coercion do not reach a level that can be considered inhumane.

Human Rights Watch therefore urges the Department of State, in future editions of the Country Reports, to state in its own voice whether the methods it lists as being used by interrogators:

· amount to ill-treatment or torture in light of their duration, combined usage, and intensity;

· are practiced in a systematic fashion; and

· are employed with impunity, indicating approval or acquiescence at a high level.

The European Union has pledged to support the Middle East peace process in a number of ways. It is doubling development aid in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and has accelerated negotiations on a free-trade agreement long sought by Israel that would expand the pact signed in 1975. The new agreement would give Israel highly preferential trade status among countries outside the EU, enabling it to export services more freely, compete for EU public procurement projects, and to increase cooperation in research and development projects.

Signing of the new trade agreement would culminate the recent warming trend in European-Israeli relations. Relations were strained at times during recent years by European disapproval over Israel's stance on peace initiatives and human rights abuses in the occupied territories.2

The EU's heightened engagement in the region should include a continued commitment to raise human rights issues with the responsible parties. In its trade negotiations with Israel, the EU should stress that improved relations depend on protecting the rights of Palestinians living in the occupied territories.

Such linkage is explicit in EU trade agreements with other countries. For example, a cooperation agreement signed with India in December 1993 states in Article One: "Respect for human rights and democratic principles is the basis for the cooperation between the Contracting parties and for the provisions of this Agreement, and it constitutes an essential element of the Agreement."

Human Rights Watch urges the European member states, acting individually and in concert, to stress to the government of Israel that good political and economic relations will depend on steps taken to eliminate the practice of torture in the occupied territories.

This report documents a pattern of ill-treatment and torture by Israeli interrogators questioning Palestinian detainees from the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. The report, which is based on thirty-six lengthy interviews that Human Rights Watch (HRW) conducted with male security suspects1 who were interrogated between June 1992 and March 1994, charges that these practices have continued on a systematic basis since Yitzhak Rabin became prime minister - and even since September 1993, when the current government co-signed with the Palestine Liberation Organization a Declaration of Principles on negotiating Israeli-Palestinian peace. The testimony of Palestinians who underwent interrogations was corroborated by interviews with soldiers who served in IDF detention camps, court testimony by security force agents, medical reports and other information.

Despite some differences in the methodologies of the two agencies, interrogators of both the General Security Service (GSS, also known as the Shin Bet or Shabak) and the Israel Defense Force (IDF) use techniques that amount to torture - according to internationally recognized definitions of the term - when trying to pressure security suspects to give and sign statements, or to provide information about third parties. These methods continue at present, despite some changes in the techniques employed in recent years (see Chapter Three).

The overriding strategy of Israel's interrogation agencies in getting uncooperative detainees to talk is to subject them to a coordinated, rigid and increasingly painful regime of physical constraints and psychological

pressures over days and very often for three or four weeks, during which time the detainees are, almost without exception, denied visits by their lawyers and families. Not only do these methods constitute methods of torture and ill-treatment prohibited under international law; they also seriously taint the voluntariness of the confessions that they help to bring about, and with it the fundamental fairness ofthe military courts that judge Palestinians in the occupied territories (excluding Jerusalem).2

In fact, the extraction of confessions under duress, and the acceptance into evidence of such confessions by the military courts, form the backbone of Israel's military justice system. The end product of that system is one of the world's highest per capita rates of imprisonment.3 Nearly all military court trials end in convictions - according to official statistics, of the 83,321 Palestinians tried in military courts in the West Bank and Gaza Strip between 1988 and 1993, only 2,731, or 3.2 percent, were acquitted.4

While not every Palestinian detainee confesses, the signed statements obtained through interrogations usually constitute the main piece of evidence against defendants. Because a defendant's signed statement is almost sufficient to convict him or her under the applicable laws of evidence, interrogators have strong incentives to obtain such a statement. And whether or not detainees incriminate themselves, they are frequently pressured to speak about others, who can then be convicted on the basis of third-party confessions (see Chapter Eighteen).

Abuses that occur during interrogation and during the trial cannot be seen in isolation from one another: they are interdependent. For example, pressures to plea bargain and inordinate delays in trial scheduling deter detainees frommounting court challenges to their confessions. This allows interrogators to escape what might otherwise be significant scrutiny of their methods.

Israel's ill-treatment of Palestinians under interrogation is distinguished not only by its conveyor-belt quality but also by the huge number of persons who experience it. Over 100,000 Palestinians had been detained since the start of the intifada in December 1987, the IDF told us in July 1993.5 The Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem charged that roughly 5,000 Palestinians per year had been subjected during interrogation to some combination of the methods of torture or ill-treatment documented in its 1991 study on interrogations.6 Information from reliable sources indicates that during 1993 the volume of interrogations remained close to this level.

Throughout 1993 some four hundred to six hundred Palestinians were under interrogation on any given day, according to reliable estimates. Since the majority of interrogations last one month or less, we can infer that the number of Palestinians who passed through interrogation during 1993 was over 4,000 and perhaps even substantially higher. To our knowledge, the government of Israel has never provided figures on the number of Palestinians interrogated.7

Nearly all Palestinians undergoing interrogation are put through some combination of the same basic methods, although the duration varies from case to case. Thus, the number of Palestinians tortured or severely ill-treated while under interrogation during the intifada is in the tens of thousands - a number that becomes especially significant when it is remembered that the universe of adult and adolescent male Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is under three-quarters of one million.

The Israeli government maintains that there is no pattern of torture by its interrogators in the occupied territories. Abuses are exceptional, it states, and each time there is evidence of a "deviation from the permissible," it is investigated, and if wrongdoing is found, the perpetrators are disciplined or charged (see Chapter Twenty).

The official position is more nuanced than that of most abusive governments which simply deny that their interrogators ever lay a hand on detainees. While authorities state that IDF interrogators are strictly forbidden to use any form of physical force against persons under interrogation,8 the GSS is permitted to use "exceptional" measures against certain categories of detainees. These methods, delineated in guidelines that remain classified (see Chapter Three), include forms of what authorities characterize as "moderate physical pressure" to obtain information or statements. According to the government, the use of physical force, which would otherwise violate Israeli law, is carefully monitored to ensure that it does not violate the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter the Convention against Torture), ratified by Israel in 1991. In a recent statement, for example, a Justice Ministry official alluded to a prohibition that is "binding" on the GSS "on the useof physical torture or abusing the detainee or degrading him in a manner that strips him of his humanity."9

Israeli authorities have long stressed that the GSS restricts the use of "exceptional" methods to cases in which the offenses are serious, and the interrogator weighs "the degree of the anticipated danger according to the suspicions arising from the activity being investigated."10

As this report demonstrates, however, methods of torture and severe ill-treatment constitute more the rule than the exception. Contrary to the image that the Israeli government seeks to project, abusive methods are routinely practiced even on suspects who are not accused of involvement in plotting or participating in attacks involving firearms or explosives. Often, they are accused of membership in an illegal organization, and eventually charged with that offense alone. Quite often, the focus of the questioning is on others and not on the detainee himself.11 Of the thirty-six ex-detainees interviewed for this report, only four said they were eventually tried and sentenced; two were released on bail pending a trial, six were placed in administrative detention, and twenty-three said they were released without charge. (The disposition of one case was not known).

Of course, whether the victim of abuse is an accused murderer or an innocent bystander is irrelevant under international law. Conventions that Israel has ratified unequivocally forbid torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, regardless of the accusations against the suspect.

Few of the abuses documented in this report are isolated occurrences. They are practiced with a considerable degree of consistency system-wide, and with virtual impunity for the practitioners. The abuses are clearly being carried out with the knowledge of the government - although officials deny that the methods constitute torture.

A disturbing phenomenon that is documented in this report is the involvement of Israeli medical personnel in the abusive interrogation process. While HRW has no evidence to suggest that doctors or medics have participated directly and actively in abuses, they have routinely checked and monitored the health of Palestinian detainees during interrogation, while remaining silent on the evidence of abuses confronting them. Their complicity sparked controversy in 1993, when an Israeli newspaper published a "fitness-for-interrogation" form that physicians at Tulkarm prison had apparently been completing. The form asked doctors to verify the detainee's fitness for "a prolonged stay in an isolation cell," "chaining," "wearing a head/eye covering," and "prolonged standing." The head of the Israel Medical Association said such certification by physicians would constitute "participation in torture" and "a clear violation of medical ethics" (see Chapter Sixteen).

While laws exist to punish interrogators who use force or ill-treat detainees, there are few known instances in which interrogators have been convicted or significantly punished for abuse. The problem is two-fold. There is first of all a lack of political will to punish abusive interrogators (see Chapter Twenty). There is only one known case in which GSS agents received criminal sentences for mistreating a detainee in their charge; authorities have claimed that in an unspecified number of other cases, GSS and prison medical personnel have been disciplined. The IDF has also stated that allegations against its interrogators have been investigated, without disclosing how many were found guilty of wrongdoing and, if so, how and for what offenses they were punished.

The other facet of the problem is that some forms of abuse are evidently permitted by the GSS's interrogation guidelines. Since those guidelines are classified, it is not possible to know how much weight to give to the two factors inexplaining why most abuse goes unpunished: how much is due to a failure to investigate and mete out appropriate punishment for deviations, and how much is due to abusive acts that are permitted by the regulations.

The most infamous aspect of what has been publicly divulged of the GSS guidelines is the authorization of unspecified means of "moderate physical pressure" to obtain information and statements. This phrase came in the 1987 report of the Landau Commission, which was appointed by the government to investigate the interrogation methods of the GSS. The specific methods it recommended were contained in a classified appendix to the Commission's report, and have been reviewed and modified by inter-ministerial committees since their adoption by the Israeli cabinet in 1987.

Although the specific guidelines have never been revealed, government approval of the techniques of hooding, position abuse,12 sleep deprivation and confinement in closet-like spaces is made abundantly clear by the system-wide employment of specialized equipment (such as tiny chairs, mechanically refrigerated stalls, and shackle attachments built into walls), and by the fact that interrogators admit in open court, readily and without fear of sanction, to practicing these techniques. As this report argues, a calibrated system of what could be characterized as "low-intensity torture" operates under government supervision.

When testifying in court, GSS agents have not acknowledged using beatings or threats. Yet even if the government has not learned through GSS court testimony and other channels that the security services regularly beat and threaten suspects, it has undoubtedly been made aware of these and other abuses through regular, private representations by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The Geneva-based humanitarian organization, whose delegates are permitted by Israeli authorities to interview Palestinians after their fourteenth day of detention, regularly reports its findings of abuse to officials of the IDF and the Israeli government. Frustrated by the persistence of the mistreatment it documented, the ICRC departed in 1992 from its policy of communicating its concerns confidentially to the abusive government, and issued a public denunciation of Israeli interrogation methods (see Chapter Four).

While the abuses described in this report are generally employed in such a way as to cause no lasting, visible physical harm, they occasionally cause long-term injury and even death. Since 1992, four Palestinians have died while under interrogation; in some of these cases, ill-treatment or torture, combined with medical negligence, appear to have contributed substantially to the death (see Chapter Nineteen). In other cases, Palestinians have emerged from interrogation with lasting psychological and/or emotional damage. The case of a thirty-four-year old healthy man who emerged from interrogation in an enduring catatonic state is recounted in Chapter Twelve.

At all stages of GSS interrogations, the methods of torture and ill-treatment tend to follow a well-defined set of steps and guidelines. Interrogation measures are selected to inflict extreme physical pain and mental anguish without causing lasting or traceable physical injury. This approach frustrates attempts to document torture and hold its practitioners accountable. Accountability is hampered also by the hooding of detainees, the interrogators' use of false names, and the lack of third-party witnesses who could confirm allegations by victims of abuse.

The IDF uses techniques of position abuse and sensory deprivation similar to those used by the GSS, albeit in a less systematized fashion. Army interrogators employ brute physical force, including severe beatings, more routinely than does the GSS. Interrogators at both agencies routinely threaten detainees, for example, that they will kill them or demolish the homes of their families.

Position Abuse

The GSS, and to a lesser extent the IDF, force detainees into painful and unnatural body positions for prolonged periods. The methods include forced standing; shackling detainees to pipes or rings embedded in walls at awkward heights, or to tiny chairs that are often angled downward or upward to maximize discomfort; or confining them in spaces so cramped that they cannot move their limbs, sit comfortably, or sleep soundly. Thus constricted for days at a time, with only brief respites, detainees suffer circulatory problems, backaches, abrasions, severe cramps, loss of sensation in the limbs, and other forms of mounting pain and discomfort.

Sensory Deprivation and Psychological Pressures

Interrogators and guards induce exhaustion, disorientation, and dread in detainees by placing them in strict isolation (through such methods as hooding and preventing communication with other detainees), broadcasting loud and jarring music round the clock, restricting access to the toilet, causing humiliation (such as by forcing detainees to eat in toilet stalls or to relieve themselves in their clothing), and exposing them to extreme cold or suffocating heat. The tight, shroud-like, canvas or felt hoods that are placed over their heads in GSS wings are often foul-smelling, and induce feelings of suffocation in some detainees.

Beatings and Physical Force

Beatings are far more routine in IDF interrogations than in GSS interrogations. Sixteen of the nineteen IDF detainees we interviewed reported having been assaulted in the interrogation room. Beatings and kicks were directed at the throat, testicles, and stomach. Some were repeatedly choked; some had their heads slammed against the wall.

GSS interrogators appear to beat detainees less often than they did in the past, and less often than do their IDF counterparts. The GSS relies more on its regime of position abuse and sensory deprivation to wear down detainees. However, beatings continue to occur during GSS interrogations - nine of the seventeen GSS detainees we interviewed reported being subjected to kicks, punches, or violent shaking during questioning. The shaking is better described as whiplashing: it involves grabbing and repeatedly shaking detainees during questioning, either by their shoulders or their collar. This can cause severe neck and back pains, and induce a choking sensation.

The abuse that detainees routinely undergo is compounded by depriving them of certain basic rights: the right to be promptly charged and brought before a judge (guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR], Article 9) and the right to prompt access to a lawyer (guaranteed by the ICCPR, Article 14(3)(b), the U.N. Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, and the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 72). In contrast to Israel, where detainees must be brought before a judge within forty-eight hours of their arrest, detainees in the occupied territories can be held without charge for eight or eighteen days, depending on the nature of the case, before they must be brought before a judge. They are, in practice, usually prevented from consulting with lawyers for the first two or three weeks of their detention, and often see a lawyer only after they have confessed. Contact with family members and other acquaintances is also routinely denied during interrogation. These practices both compound the pressures experienced by detainees and make it more difficult for abuse to be noted by their lawyers and the military judges before whom they are brought for extension-of-detention hearings.

The findings of this report are based on detailed interviews that HRW researchers conducted face to face with thirty-six Palestinian ex-detainees who were interrogated between June 1992 and March 1994. The report also draws on cases of Palestinians who were still in detention and thus unavailable for interviews by HRW, but who provided information via their lawyers.

HRW's interview subjects were selected on the basis of recommendations by defense lawyers and human rights organizations, who indicated that the individuals in question had been under military or GSS interrogation. Statistics about the interview subjects and their experiences are provided in Chapter Two. We cannot assert that the sample represents the average level of abuse, the average period that legal counsel is denied, or represents an exact average of any other phenomena encountered by Palestinians during their interrogations. The experiences described here may be more or less severe than what most Palestinians endure under interrogation. What the sample of thirty-six strongly indicates, however, is that severe abuse, including torture, is widespread.

The sample is diverse in a number of ways. The subjects were interrogated by either the GSS or the IDF (police interrogations are described in a separate chapter that draws on separate interviews). Their interrogations took place in nine facilities, located both inside Israel and the occupied territories, where Palestinians from the occupied territories are commonly interrogated concerning security-related offenses. They were accused of activities on behalf of a variety of organizations, both Islamist and secular nationalist. In some cases, the interrogators apparently suspected them of serious crimes, including murder; in others, they were suspected of nonviolent offenses. For some, the apparent priority of the interrogators was to obtain information about third parties.

Some of the techniques discussed in this report, such as beating and prolonged position abuse, constitute methods of torture even when considered in isolation from other techniques. Other methods could be characterized as ill-treatment, and become torture when used in combination with other methods, as argued in Chapter Five. But Israeli interrogators do not commonly use these techniques one at a time; they consistently use them in combination with one another.

In international law, the distinction between torture and ill-treatment in its various forms is inconsequential: both are categorically prohibited. Israel is a signatory to the key human-rights covenants that address torture and ill-treatment, the ICCPR (Article 7), and the Convention against Torture. Israel is therefore legally bound by these prohibitions.

The government of Israel, as mentioned above, admits that the GSS employs "moderate" physical and psychological pressure during interrogations, but claims that the agency guidelines explicitly prohibit torture and degrading treatment.13 A petition challenging this claim was filed before Israel's Supreme Court, but in 1993 the Court declined to hear the claim, on the grounds that the petitioner's case lacked the requisite degree of case-based concreteness (see Chapter Three).

While denying that the approved methods constitute torture or ill-treatment, Israeli officials point out that a courtroom remedy is available to any Palestinian detainee who wishes to challenge the voluntariness of his or her confession. In that procedure, known as a "mini-trial" or "trial-within-the-trial," the burden of proof is ostensibly on the prosecution to demonstrate that the defendant's confession was given voluntarily.

The relevant Israeli law is, on its face, quite satisfactory. It prohibits the introduction into evidence of tainted confessions and provides prison terms for public servants found to have used or directed the use of force against a person for the purpose of extracting information or a confession. While laudable in theory, the mini-trial procedure in practice does not offer defendants a meaningful avenue for challenging their confessions, for reasons that are explored in Chapter Eighteen. Defense lawyers interviewed by HRW knew of no case in the West Bank or Gaza military courts in which the judge ruled in favor of a Palestinian defendant who had challenged the voluntariness of his confession.

Israeli interrogations of Palestinian security detainees take place in ten GSS and three IDF interrogation facilities located throughout the occupied territories and, in the case of the GSS, in Israel itself. A small minority of security suspects are interrogated by the police at police stations located throughout the occupied territories.

The general division of labor between GSS and IDF interrogators is that the GSS typically questions Palestinians suspected of being involved in or having knowledge of relatively severe offenses, while the IDF interrogates persons suspected of relatively minor offenses. This triage was confirmed by a senior officer in the IDF Judge Advocate-General's corps, who told HRW in a November 18, 1993 interview, "In general, the GSS decides who does the interrogation. A case goes to the IDF if it's a less complicated, [less] serious case." Most of those interrogated by the police are youths below the age of eighteen and persons suspected of criminal offenses that are not politically motivated.

GSS and the IDF interrogation facilities constitute a closed world. Occasionally, visits have been conducted by Israeli officials, members of parliament, and judges. However, with extremely few exceptions, independent monitors or organizations have not been permitted to inspect IDF or GSS interrogation centers, even when those individuals or groups have been invited to tour the general sections of prisons.14 The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is not allowed into interrogation wings, although its delegates regularly meet with prisoners undergoing interrogation in visiting rooms outside the interrogation wings.

The GSS is a secretive agency responsible only to the Office of the Prime Minister; other branches of the government exercise only limited oversight. The identity of its officials and agents is classified, as are its operating procedures, budget and the location of its bureaus.15

In the occupied territories, the GSS collects information primarily through its interrogation of detainees, its extensive network of agents and Palestinian informants, and its cooperation with other branches of the security services. Information and directives from the GSS weigh heavily in decisions on imposing extrajudicial sanctions, such as who is to be arrested, administratively detained, deported, or prevented from leaving the occupied territories. The GSS plays a major role not only in deciding on security-related sanctions, but also in decision-making on mundane aspects of daily life that bear little or no apparent relation to Israeli security considerations, such as whether a particular Palestinian is to receive a driver's license, authorization to travel to Jordan to obtain medical treatment, or permission for a spouse to obtain permanent residence in the occupied territories. According to Palestinian testimony, GSS often barters its approval of such requests for the applicant's agreement to provide information of interest to the agency.

While Israel's Jewish citizenry tends to revere the GSS as effective in combatting Palestinian violence directed at Israeli citizens and property, the agency's reputation among the 1.8 million Palestinians living in the occupied territories is that of a secret police agency that exercises wide-ranging and non-accountable control over their daily lives, often by violent and/or coercive means.

GSS Interrogations

Suspects taken to GSS interrogation wings are typically suspected of relatively serious offenses: they include occupying middle- to senior-level posts in one of the several Palestinian organizations outlawed by the Israeli authorities; communication with other activists inside and outside of the territories; logistical support for armed militants; violent attacks against suspected Palestinian collaborators and/or Israeli soldiers or civilians, weapons training or transport, and preparation of explosives.

Arrests for the purpose of interrogation are often carried out between 11:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. by large groups of soldiers accompanied by plainclothesGSS agents. Typically, soldiers force open the doors of suspects' homes and overturn possessions and furniture, ostensibly to search for weapons or incriminating evidence. The arresting authorities rarely reveal the reasons for the arrest to the detainee or his family, or where the suspect is being taken.

When en route to the initial site of detention and in transit from one detention center to another, many of the interrogation subjects interviewed for this report said they were beaten, cursed or otherwise abused by soldiers guarding them in the vehicle. These abuses, as opposed to the position abuse and sensory deprivation methods inside the detention centers, do not appear to reflect official policy. However, their frequency indicates official tolerance.

Within one to two days of their arrest, persons taken to GSS interrogation wings are placed in a universe of discomfort, pain, humiliation and threats, from which there is no exit until the interrogation ends or the detainee provides information to the interrogators' satisfaction.

With the exception of questioning sessions, abusive body positioning in GSS wings continues round the clock with only brief breaks provided two or three times a day. It is nearly impossible to sleep for more than minutes at a time while hooded, chained to a position-abuse station, and subjected to loud and unpleasant music. Prisoners who appear to doze off risk being slapped or shouted awake by patrolling guards.

GSS interrogation subjects are questioned several times a day for periods generally ranging from one to four hours. In the interrogation room, all ex-detainees in our sample were exposed to a wide variety of psychological abuses, including threats of indefinite detention, being driven insane, death, maiming, or of harm or sexual abuse to themselves or family members.

As mentioned above and described in detail in Chapter Thirteen, GSS interrogators appear to beat detainees less often than they did in the past, and less often than do their IDF counterparts. However, beating continues in what appears to be a substantial minority of cases. In addition, many detainees who were not otherwise beaten reported being shaken violently and repeatedly by their shoulders or collars when questioned. Although it typically leaves few marks, the violent shaking induces pain and fear.

During breaks, detainees typically have no more than five minutes to eat and use the toilet. At some interrogation centers, they are forced to do both of these activities simultaneously in the same dark, rank toilet stall. Most of the GSS interrogation subjects interviewed for this report said they were permitted to sleep soundly only once a week, during a day-and-a-half respite that usually coincided with the Jewish sabbath. Some detainees reported that during the week, they wereoccasionally unshackled and allowed to lie down for an hour or more, after which they were returned to position abuse.

IDF Interrogations

Palestinians brought to one of the three IDF interrogation centers in the occupied territories are typically suspected of less serious offenses than those brought in for interrogation by the GSS. These include throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at Israeli troops or civilians, painting political graffiti on walls, and low-level membership in outlawed organizations.

IDF interrogations are in many ways similar to those conducted by GSS agents. They involve prolonged position abuse, sensory deprivation, threats, and prolonged detention without charge or access to lawyers or family members.

Nevertheless, there are important differences in the interrogation practices of the two agencies. In contrast to GSS interrogators, IDF interrogators have no authorization to deviate from Israeli law regarding proper means of interrogation. They are bound by the legal prohibition against using physical force or threats. Paradoxically, IDF interrogators beat detainees more regularly than do their GSS counterparts.

Abusive body positioning in IDF interrogation wings is generally less sophisticated, severe and protracted than in GSS facilities, where special instruments such as bars built into the walls and tiny chairs are used to intensify the discomfort. The three most common forms of IDF position abuse are prolonged standing, enforced sitting, and confinement in small, enclosed spaces. While standing or sitting on concrete blocks, interrogation subjects' hands are painfully and tightly cuffed behind their backs, their eyes are blindfolded, and they are ordered to remain in a fixed position for up to ten or twelve hours at a time.

As in the GSS, IDF abusive body positioning is accompanied by prolonged sleep, sight and toilet deprivation, and, in some cases, exposure to extremely cold or hot external temperatures.

IDF detainees generally spend their nights in cells, in contrast to GSS detainees. Their cells tend to be cramped and dirty, and, in many cases, guards deliberately interrupt their sleep every half hour or so. Still, sleep deprivation in the IDF wings is less severe than in the GSS.

This report is divided into four basic sections:

· Part One introduces the subject of ill-treatment and torture during Israeli interrogations. It describes the sample and methodology of this report, and surveys pertinent developments prior to our period of study, the work of other organizations on the issue, and relevant international law.

· Part Two places the interrogation phase in the wider criminal-judicial context. It describes the conduct of arrests, the environment of the interrogation wings, and, briefly, the military courts that try Palestinians in the occupied territories.

· Part Three contains the bulk of our findings about how interrogations are conducted. We describe in turn each method that we found to be common, stressing throughout how systematically they are used in combination with one another. Part Three also analyzes the complicity of prison doctors and paramedics in torture and ill-treatment, and touches on interrogations by the Israeli police, an issue that we did not study in depth.

· Part Four looks at what degree of accountability exists for abuses that take place during GSS and IDF interrogations. It first analyzes the remedies suspects have in court when they seek to repudiate their confessions as having been coerced. Next, we consider how the system has responded to deaths in detention. Finally, we assess the credibility of official claims that abuses that occur during interrogations are promptly investigated and appropriately punished.

The peace process under way between Israel and the PLO has raised hopes that human rights abuses would diminish in the new political order. But at the centers of interrogation, all that seems to have changed since September 1993 is the target population. The inmates of interrogation centers now seem to include fewer supporters of PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat than in the past, and a higher proportion of suspected members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and nationalist factions opposed to Arafat's negotiations with Israel.

But the methods of the IDF and GSS seem little changed: their interrogation units are bureaucracies with entrenched and time-tested ways of doing their work. As long as the political establishment expects them to obtaininformation and confessions through interrogations, and as long as neither the political establishment nor the courts force changes in their conduct, there is little likelihood that either body will go about its business differently.

In preparing this report, HRW made two field missions to the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Declaration of Principles was signed in September 1993. We conducted lengthy interviews with ten Palestinians who had been interrogated by the IDF or GSS between October 1993 and March 1994, and discussed recent interrogation trends with human rights lawyers and organizations.

The peace process, we found, has yet to trickle into the interrogation rooms: if a detainee is brought in for an earnest interrogation, he is likely to be subjected to some combination of several of the following abuses: sleep deprivation, verbal insults, prolonged position abuse, hooding or blindfolding, enclosure in closet-like spaces, subjection to temperature extremes and to distressing and continuous noise. He is also likely to be beaten, especially if the interrogators are from the IDF.

The prospect of ill-treatment does not hinge on whether the detainee is suspected of a violent offense. Our sample, in fact, underrepresents persons suspected of grave offenses, who might be expected to face even harsher interrogation methods. Nine of the ten ex-detainees we interviewed had been released without charge after their interrogation, and the tenth had been released on bail.

Two interrogations conducted in late 1993 illustrate the ongoing problem:

On November 10, Bassem Tamimi of Ramallah was rushed to Hadassah hospital in Jerusalem, where a CAT scan revealed a cerebral hemorrhage. The hemorrhage was due to a very recent trauma, according to a member of the medical staff who spoke with human rights lawyer Tamar Pelleg-Sryck. Tamimi had been brought to the hospital from Ramallah prison, where he was under interrogation by the GSS. He had been arrested the day before in a round-up of several suspected members of a rogue Fatah unit that had abducted and killed Jewish settler Chaim Mizrahi on October 29.16 Tamimi described what happened to him after his arrest and arrival at the GSS wing at Ramallah prison:

They hooded me, and then took me straight to an interrogation office. They took my hood off. It was about six in the evening.In the interrogation room, there was a small chair. An interrogator tied my hands to the back of the chair, and left me there with the hood on.

Tamimi said he remained on the chair all night, except for a trip to the toilet. In the morning an interrogator code-named "Abu Ghazal" came in and began questioning him about various matters. Then the subject turned to the killing of Mizrahi:

From that minute, he started to beat me, and all the questions were only about the Mizrahi killing. He grabbed my chin and began to flip my head back and forth, very powerfully. He did that continuously. Then he started shaking it right and left, twisting my neck from side to side.

Then he made me stand up. He grabbed me by the shoulders, and began to push me back and forth violently. He would come up close to me, hold my shirt, and then thrust his hands out very quickly, and then pull me back up to him. When he did that, my head flapped back and forth very quickly. He did this many times....

At one point, I was kneeling on the ground, my legs tied together and my hands cuffed behind my back. "Abu Ghazal" sat on one of those revolving office chairs, the kind that go up and down when you turn them. He screwed the seat of his chair down very low until it trapped my knees between the seat and the floor. Then he grabbed my chin and yanked it back and forth. When he did that, I fell backwards very quickly. He then pulled me up, and did it again. Sometimes, when I was on the ground, he would grab my collar and shake me like he did when I was standing.

When he was doing the pushing with the seat, I felt as if my brain was rolling around loose in my head. I thought my head was going to explode, it hurt so much....

At first, he was asking me only about the Mizrahi case. Then, he started asking me questions about a "wanted" person caught inmy house a year ago. He also said that someone else had said that there were weapons hidden in my house.Then he said, "I won't ask you about that other stuff. I want you only to talk about the killing of Chaim Mizrahi. If you do not talk, you will be killed. You have two choices: to talk or to die. Don't bet that because you were interrogated before you can withstand this....Your case is very serious. You either confess or you die."

He started shaking me again, but even more violently. He kept asking about Mizrahi. Then he pulled me up so that I was standing, knees bent, with my back to the wall. If I tried to sink down to the ground, he pulled me up to my feet. If I stood up straight, he smacked the top of my head with his hand, forcing me back down. I stood that way, knees bent, for about half an hour. He then put me back on the ground, screwed the chair down again, and trapped my knees, and began the pushing and shaking again. He was sitting at one point on my knees, and I was feeling very sick and dizzy. Then, all of a sudden, I fainted. I woke up five days later in the hospital with the injury.

Tamimi said he did not know whether the cerebral hemorrhage he suffered was caused by a blow, or hitting his head on the chair or floor as he fainted. The diagnosis, however, suggests a higher-velocity impact than a simple fall. Tamimi underwent surgery and spent four weeks recovering, most of it in a Prison Service hospital, and was then released without charge.

Tamimi's lawyer, Jawad Boulos, submitted formal complaints to the Justice Ministry and the Israeli police, demanding to know the results of any investigation into the case. (The Israeli press had reported in November that an investigation had been opened.17) As of March 16, Boulos told HRW, he had received no reply from the authorities.

N.S., a nineteen-year-old university student from Ramallah, was interrogated for thirty days in November and December by IDF interrogators at al-Far'a detention center. N.S. was charged with membership in Hamas, and writing and distributing leaflets and posters for that organization. He was released on bail.

The abuses at al-Far'a he described at resemble those recounted by detainees held there in earlier periods:

Shabeh [enforced sitting or standing while blindfolded and handcuffed] consisted mostly of standing from nine in the morning until eight at night, in the courtyard. Some days, I stood all the time, with no food, or no visit to the toilet. This happened four or five times. Sometimes they would put me instead on a stone seat in the yard.

Sometimes, I was put in a leaky, damp "closet" [a closet-sized room]...for eight or ten hours, other times for three or four hours. In the "closet," you sit all the time. You can't move. The guards come around and bang on the door. Often, people relieved themselves in the "closet" because they weren't allowed to go to the toilet, and there was no container in there. Many people did that, and the closets stank very badly.

At night, you lie in the cells like animals. The mattresses and blankets are filthy, and they stink. There is no sun or air. The cell is full of water, because it leaks and there is rain. The blankets were soaked, the mattresses too. There was no toilet. There was a container to go in, but it was very difficult to go in there.

All the time, I was wearing the same clothes that they first gave me when I came to the prison. They were very thin clothes, and it was very cold when standing in shabeh, or in the closet. The closet was especially cold.

In the interrogation room, the interrogators slapped me and kicked me between the legs while I was sitting on the chair. My prison number was 2048, so once an interrogator tried to make me squat 2,048 times. This is impossible, of course, so after a while, I fell on the ground. Then he kicked me in the legs and testicles.

When in interrogation you feel destroyed psychologically. For example, when they give you the same cup to drink from and to wash your behind with after defecating. It's disgusting. This is the atmosphere there all the time.

Testimonies such as those of Bassem Tamimi and N.S. indicate that the peace process, by itself, has done little to eradicate a pattern of torture and ill-treatment. The places where they were interrogated, Ramallah prison and al-Far'a military detention center, continue to induct scores of Palestinians for interrogation each month. Even if the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip and Jericho area proceeds as planned, Israeli security forces will continue to exercise direct rule over the majority of Palestinians who live outside these areas; and throughout the occupied territories, Israel will retain responsibility "for overall security of Israelis for the purpose of safeguarding their internal security and public order," according to the Declaration of Principles. In this context, systematically abusive interrogations are likely to continue unless strong pressure is brought to bear to end them.

In preparing this report, HRW conducted lengthy interviews with thirty-six ex-detainees who were interrogated by the IDF or the GSS between June 1992 and March 1994. In addition to our own interviews, this report draws on five interviews conducted by defense lawyers with Palestinians still in prison. We included the latter cases in order to diversify the sample.

While not a cross-section or random sample of the population that undergoes interrogation, our diverse sample demonstrates that Israel's principal interrogation agencies routinely mistreat Palestinians in their custody in ways that constitute torture. The Palestinians interviewed by HRW for this report are varied with regard to several key criteria:

· age: ranging from seventeen to forty-seven, with most in their early twenties;

· area of residence: twenty are from the northern West Bank, five are from the southern West Bank and eleven are from the Gaza Strip;

· suspected political orientation: detainees said their interrogators accused them of membership in a variety of illegal organizations, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah (a mainstream movement within the PLO), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (a leftist faction of the PLO), and the Arab Liberation Front, all of them illegal organizations at the time;

· duration of interrogation: between two and seventy-five days, with most in the range of two to four weeks;

· place of interrogation: of the GSS detainees, six were interrogated at Ramallah, five at Hebron, three at Tulkarm, and one each at Gaza,Ashkelon and Petach Tikva1; of the IDF detainees, eight were interrogated at al-Far'a, six at the Beach facility and five at Dhahiriya2;

· severity of accusations or charges: detainees said they were accused of offenses ranging from homicide to writing nationalist graffiti; others said the questioning focused on the activities of third parties;

· legal disposition of the case:

twenty-three said they were released without charge;

six were placed in administrative detention;

four were tried and sentenced;

two were released on bail pending their trial; and

the disposition of one case is not known.

By interviewing only Palestinians who had been interrogated since mid-1992, HRW was unable to include in its sample any Palestinians who had been convicted and sentenced to actual prison terms longer than eight months. (Detainees sentenced to long prison terms would have been in prison at the time of HRW's fieldwork, and thus unavailable for interviews.) Our data therefore are insufficient to prove our impression that persons suspected of relatively serious offenses experience harsher treatment under interrogation. What our sample does show is that even those Palestinians who are suspected of relatively minor offenses,and/or are released without charge, routinely undergo severe forms of mistreatment.

With the help of Israeli and Palestinian defense lawyers and human rights organizations, HRW made contact with ex-detainees who were willing to be interviewed about their interrogation. We pursued all promising leads, and did not attempt to pre-select interview subjects on the basis of their reported political affiliation, activities, or severity of interrogation experience.

Most of the interviews were conducted in Arabic. Several were in Hebrew and one was in English. For some of the Arabic interviews, an interpreter hired by HRW was used. Each interview was conducted separately, with none of the other interview subjects present. They took place in private homes, lawyers' offices, or in school buildings. Whenever possible, the interviewer and the ex-detainee sat by themselves in the room, except when an interpreter was present.

During the interviews, ex-detainees were asked to provide the nicknames and appearance of their interrogators, which we checked against the descriptions provided by others interrogated at the same facility (for the nicknames of interrogators, see the Appendix). All of the former detainees were asked to demonstrate the body positions they had been forced to maintain and the blows they had received. Many agreed to reenact segments of the interrogation, playing the role of the interrogator while the HRW field-worker or translator took the role of the interrogation subject.

The following data are drawn from the testimony provided by the ex-detainees. In a few places, as indicated, the data do not include the entire GSS or IDF sample. This is due to two factors: ex-detainees sometimes did not recall all details of their interrogation; and second, not all ex-detainees were asked the identical questions, since the pertinence of some questions became evident only during the course of conducting the interviews.

Duration of Interrogation

For this statistic, the duration of the interrogation phase was counted from the arrival of the detainee in the interrogation wing until his release from the wing. For nearly all of the detainees we interviewed, this phase began shortly after arrest. However, a few detainees reported being first held without charge in cells or holding centers for several days.

The average length of interrogation for GSS detainees was twenty-nine days. The median was twenty-three days.

The average length of interrogation for IDF interrogation subjects twenty-one days. The median was eighteen days.

The average for all interrogation subjects was twenty-five days. The median was twenty-two days.

Beating and Violent Shaking (See Chapter Thirteen)

Of the seventeen GSS interrogation subjects, nine reported being beaten or violently shaken. Two of sixteen GSS subjects reported being beaten on the testicles (the seventeenth was not specifically asked about this).

Of the nineteen IDF interrogation subjects, sixteen reported being beaten. Thirteen said they were beaten on the testicles.

Six of eighteen IDF subjects said they were beaten en route from their place of arrest to the detention center. Five of fifteen GSS subjects said they were beaten en route. The other members of the sample were not questioned about this phase of custody.

(Note: The term "beating" in this report excludes light slaps, jabs, or punches, that may be degrading but are not intended primarily to inflict physical pain.)

Abusive Body Positioning (See Chapter Ten)

Ring/Pipe-shackling

Ten of the seventeen GSS interrogation subjects reported being shackled to pipes or rings embedded in the wall. The confinement ranged in duration from a few hours to, in one case, three days, with short breaks for questioning, eating, and using the toilet. Of the ten, seven were shackled while seated on "kindergarten chairs," and six while standing (three experienced both methods). Seven reported no wall-shackling. Only one of the IDF interrogation subjects reported experiencing wall-shackling.

Prolonged Standing

Fifteen of the nineteen IDF interrogation subjects said they were forced to stand in the standing areas (shabeh) or in "closets" for periods of at least three hours. The standing periods commonly exceeded ten hours, interrupted only by short toilet and eating breaks or questioning sessions.

Prolonged standing does not appear to be a standard practice of GSS interrogators, although six GSS detainees reported being forced to stand while shackled to the wall (see above).

Prolonged Sitting on "Kindergarten Chair"

Thirteen GSS subjects reported being forced to sit for prolonged periods on tiny chairs. The other four said they were confined for prolonged periods on ordinary chairs. The IDF does not commonly use prolonged seating as a form of abuse.

Deliberate Subjection to Temperature Extremes (See Chapter Eleven)

Five GSS detainees reported being confined in deliberately over-cooled rooms ("refrigerators"). Two others were exposed to cold weather without adequate clothing, and one was placed in a hot and poorly ventilated cubicle, under circumstances that strongly suggested that the discomfort was being deliberately caused.

Hooding/Blindfolding (See Chapter Twelve)

All seventeen GSS interrogation subjects reported that they were hooded for prolonged periods between questioning sessions. All nineteen IDF subjects reported being blindfolded for prolonged periods between questioning sessions.

Sleep Deprivation (See Chapter Twelve)

Sixteen GSS detainees reported being deprived of sleep for prolonged periods, through confinement day and night in uncomfortable standing or sitting positions and denial of opportunities to lie down. IDF detainees, in contrast, said they spent virtually every night in cells, where they could lie down. However, of the sixteen IDF subjects who commented on the nights they spent in cells, nine said their sleep was interrupted constantly in what appeared to be a pattern of deliberate harassment by soldiers.

Deliberate Subjection to Loud and Continuous Noise (See Chapter Twelve)

All seventeen GSS detainees reported that the interrogation wings were continuously bombarded with loud and grating music. The music was broadcast in a manner that left no doubt that its purpose was to distress the detainees.

Length of Time between Arrest and First Meeting with Lawyer

(See Chapter Eight)

Of the eleven GSS detainees who were permitted to meet their lawyer during interrogation, the average length of time before the first meeting was twenty days, and the median length of time was twenty-one days.

The other six GSS subjects were interrogated and released without meeting their lawyer. Of these, one was held for less than one week, one was held for between one and two weeks, two were held for between two and three weeks, and two were held for between three and four weeks.

Among the seventeen IDF detainees who were able to provide this information, the breakdown was as follows: of the ten who were permitted to meet their lawyer during interrogation, the average length of time before the first meeting was nineteen days, and the median length of time was 18.5 days. Seven IDF subjects were released before being permitted to confer with their lawyers. Of these, one was held for less than one week, two were held for between one and two weeks, three were held for between two and three weeks, and one was held for between three and four weeks.

Below are data about the thirty-six ex-detainees interviewed by HRW for this report. They are divided according to whether they were interrogated by the GSS or the IDF. Within each category, the cases are in reverse chronological order according to the time of their interrogation.

At the end of the list are data about five additional Palestinians whose testimony was studied in the preparation of this report.3 (Their cases, however, are not included in the statistical profile above.) At the time of the HRW fieldwork, these five men were still in detention and therefore not accessible to HRW researchers; their testimony was collected by defense lawyers, who shared it with HRW.

For each of its thirty-six cases, HRW interviewed the ex-detainee at length and was convinced of his credibility about the interrogation experience. Some ex-detainees, however, were vague or elusive when discussing the charges and accusations against them. HRW did not independently verify the nature of those charges and accusations; they are provided below as given by the ex-detainees themselves.

All of the persons listed below except one gave HRW their full names. Most, however, asked that their names not be used in the report. To respect their requested anonymity, these ex-detainees are referred to by their initials or partial names, and some identifying details are omitted.

GSS Interrogations

Name: Bassem Tamimi

Age: 26

Occupation: Unemployed

Area of residence: Ramallah, West Bank

Period of interrogation: November 9-10, 1993

Duration of interrogation: One day, then hospitalized

Place of interrogation: Ramallah prison

Accusations made during interrogation: Linked to killing of a Jewish settler

Formal charges: None

Date of interview: March 16, 1994

Place of interview: Ramallah, West Bank

Name: A. Z.

Age: 23

Occupation: University student in history and political science

Area of residence: Qalandiya refugee camp, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: October-November 1993

Duration of interrogation: 18 days

Place of interrogation: Ramallah prison

Accusations made during interrogation: Campus leader of Hamas

Formal charges: None, but given a three-month administrative detention order

Date of interview: March 15, 1994

Place of interview: Ramallah, West Bank

Name: M. Z.

Age: 21

Occupation: Painter

Area of residence: Gaza City, Gaza Strip

Approximate period of interrogation: October 1993

Duration of interrogation: 20 days

Place of interrogation: Ashkelon prison

Accusations made during interrogation: knowledge of location of fugitives Formal charges: None

Date of interview: November 23, 1993

Place of interview: Journalist's office in Gaza City

Name: Ali Ayed Ali Radaydeh

Age: 23

Occupation: Manual laborer

Area of residence: Village of Abadiyeh, Bethlehem district

Approximate period of interrogation: January-February 1993

Duration of interrogation: 18 days

Place of interrogation: Hebron prison

Accusations made during interrogation: Possessing information about the killing of a Jewish settler

Formal charges: None

Date of interview: March 1, 1993

Place of interview: Home in Abadiyeh village

Name: Nasser Radaydeh

Age: 20

Occupation: Construction worker

Area of residence: Abadiyeh village, Bethlehem district, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: January-February 1993

Duration of interrogation: 23 days

Place of interrogation: Hebron prison

Accusations made during interrogation: Possessing information about the killing of a Jewish settler

Formal charges: None

Date of interview: February 19, 1993

Place of interview: Home in Abadiyeh village

Name: Sh. Z.

Age: 22

Occupation: Student at a West Bank university

Area of residence: Ramallah, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: December 1992

Duration of interrogation: 15 days

Place of interrogation: Ramallah prison

Accusations made during interrogation: Armed attack on Israeli settler

Formal charges: Unknown; tried in military court and sentenced to sixty-four days in prison, six months' suspended sentence, and a 2,500 shekel fine (U.S. $800). Prison sentence corresponded to time already served

Date of interview: March 31, 1993

Place of interview: University campus in the West Bank

Name: M. R.

Age: 29

Occupation: Unemployed

Area of residence: Khan Yunis refugee camp, Gaza Strip

Approximate period of interrogation: December 1992

Duration of interrogation: 8 days

Place of interrogation: Gaza prison

Accusations made during interrogation: Organizational activities abroad for an illegal Palestinian organization

Formal charges: None

Date of interview: March 20, 1993

Place of interview: Lawyer's office in Khan Yunis

Name: Ahmed Husni al-Batsh

Age: 47

Occupation: Former high school teacher; now an aide to Faisal al-Husseini, director of the Arab Studies Society

Area of residence: Dir Naballah, Ramallah district, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: September-November 1992

Duration of interrogation: 75 days

Place of interrogation: Ramallah prison

Accusations made during interrogation: Senior member in, and activities on behalf of an illegal organization (Fatah)

Formal charges: None

Date of interviews: February 19 and 26, 1993

Place of interview: Home in Dir Naballah

Name: Ribhi Suleiman Qatamesh

Age: 45

Occupation: Lawyer, researcher at social studies institute

Area of residence: Ramallah, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: October 1992

Duration of interrogation: 23 days

Place of interrogation: Hebron prison

Accusations made during interrogation: Knowledge of location of weapons cache

Formal charges: None

Date of interview: March 7, 1993

Place of interview: Lawyer's office in Ramallah

Name: Hassan Zebeideh

Age: 34

Occupation: Grocer

Area of residence: Anabta village, Tulkarm district, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: September-October 1992

Duration of interrogation: 33 days

Place of interrogation: Tulkarm prison

Accusations made during interrogation: Membership in Hamas

Formal charges: None

Date of interview: May 14, 1993

Place of interview: Home in Anabta

Name: Rashid Hilal

Age: 33

Occupation: Journalist, Palestine Press Service

Area of residence: Ramallah, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: September-October 1992

Duration of interrogation: 42 days

Place of interrogation: Petach Tikva police station

Accusations made during interrogation: Aiding members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine

Formal charges: None

Date of interview: March 6, 1993

Place of interview: Palestine Press Service office, Ramallah

Name: Ad. M.

Age: 20

Occupation: Engineering student at a West Bank university

Area of residence: Tulkarm, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: Autumn 1992

Duration of interrogation: 47 days

Place of interrogation: Tulkarm prison

Accusations made during interrogation: Receiving military training abroad, membership in Islamic Jihad, planning armed operations

Formal charges: None

Date of interview: March 18, 1993

Place of interview: University campus in the West Bank

Name: S. R.

Age: 25

Occupation: Student at a West Bank university

Area of residence: Ramallah, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: Early autumn 1992

Duration of interrogation: 38 days

Place of interrogation: Ramallah prison

Accusations made during interrogation: Membership in an illegal organization (Hamas), "intifada activities"4

Formal charges: Same; tried and sentenced to 7.5 months in prison (time already served)

Date of interview: April 3, 1993

Place of interview: Home in Ramallah

Name: B. Ah.

Age: 23

Occupation: Unemployed

Area of residence: Bethlehem area, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: Late summer 1992

Duration of interrogation: 22 days

Place of interrogation: Hebron prison

Accusations made during interrogation: Armed operations, recruiting others into an illegal organization

Formal charges: None

Date of interview: March 29, 1993

Place of interview: Home near Bethlehem

Name: U. Gh.

Age: 23

Occupation: Computer programming student

Area of residence: Ramallah, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: Late summer 1992

Duration of interrogation: 24 days

Place of interrogation: Tulkarm prison

Accusations made during interrogation: Membership in Hamas, stone-throwing

Formal charges: None

Date of interview: February 15, 1993

Place of interview: Home in Ramallah

Name: H. M.

Age: 33

Occupation: Night guard

Area of residence: Ramallah area, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: Late summer 1992

Duration of interrogation: 39 days

Place of interrogation: Ramallah prison

Accusations made during interrogation: Senior membership in Fatah

Formal charges: None, but given a six-month administrative detention order

Date of interview: January 20, 1993

Place of interview: Lawyer's office in Ramallah

Name: Abd A.

Age: 26

Occupation: Student at a university in the West Bank

Area of residence: Bethlehem area, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: Summer 1992

Duration of interrogation: 50 days

Place of interrogation: Hebron prison

Accusations made during interrogation: Membership in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, interrogating suspected Palestinian collaborators, involvement in armed activity

Formal charges: None, but given a six-month administrative detention order

Date of interview: March 16, 1993

Place of interview: University campus in the West Bank

IDF Interrogations

Name: Sh. S.

Age: 21

Occupation: University student, West Bank

Area of residence: Khan Yunis refugee camp, Gaza Strip

Approximate period of interrogation: February-March 1994

Duration of interrogation: 18 days

Place of interrogation: Al-Far'a

Accusations made during interrogation: Aiding fugitives, membership in Hamas

Formal charges: None

Date of interview: March 16, 1994

Place of interview: Ramallah, West Bank

Name: Abd R.

Age: 19

Occupation: Student at a university in the West Bank

Area of residence: Khan Yunis refugee camp, Gaza Strip

Approximate period of interrogation: February-March 1994

Duration of interrogation: 8 days

Place of interrogation: Al-Far'a

Accusations made during interrogation: Not known

Formal charges: None

Date of interview: March 15, 1994

Place of interview: University campus in the West Bank

Name: N. S.

Age: 19

Occupation: Student at a university in the West Bank

Area of residence: Ramallah, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: Late November-late December 1993

Duration of interrogation: 30 days

Place of interrogation: Al-Far'a

Accusations made during interrogation: Membership in Hamas. Student activities on behalf of Hamas, including writing and printing leaflets and distributing posters

Formal charges: Same; released on bail of 2,000 shekels (U.S. $640) and, at time of HRW interview, awaiting trial

Date of interview: March 16, 1994

Place of interview: Ramallah

Name: A. A.

Age: 25

Occupation: Unemployed

Area of residence: Aida refugee camp, Bethlehem district, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: November 1993

Duration of interrogation: About 17 days

Place of interrogation: al-Far'a

Accusations made during interrogation: Membership in Hamas

Formal charges: None

Date of interview: November 22, 1993

Place of interview: Home in Aida refugee camp

Name: S. Mas.

Age: 23

Occupation: Studied computer engineering

Area of residence: Gaza City, Gaza Strip

Approximate period of interrogation: October 1993

Duration of interrogation: 12 days

Place of interrogation: Beach facility

Accusations made during interrogation: participating in setting off an explosive device

Formal charges: None

Date of interview: November 23, 1993

Place of interview: Journalist's office in Gaza City

Name: A. abu M.

Age: 23

Occupation: Agricultural worker

Area of residence: Al-Bureij refugee camp, Gaza Strip

Approximate period of interrogation: October 1993

Duration of interrogation: About 18 days

Place of interrogation: Beach facility

Accusations made during interrogation: Membership in an illegal organization

Formal charges: None

Date of interview: November 23, 1993

Place of interview: Journalist's office in Gaza City

Name: M. N.

Age: 18

Occupation: Student at a university in the West Bank

Area of residence: Jabalya refugee camp, Gaza Strip

Approximate period of interrogation: October 1993

Duration of interrogation: Slightly over two weeks

Place of interrogation: Beach facility

Accusations made during interrogation: Membership in Islamic Jihad

Formal charges: None

Date of interview: November 17, 1993

Place of interview: University campus in West Bank

Name: H. H.

Age: 20

Occupation: Student at a university in the West Bank

Area of residence: Ramallah area, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: Spring 1993

Duration of interrogation: 9 days

Place of interrogation: Dhahiriya

Accusations made during interrogation: Membership in an illegal organization, throwing stones at Israeli troops, erecting roadblocks

Formal charges: None

Date of interview: March 31, 1993

Place of interview: University campus in the West Bank

Name: Muhammad R.

Age: 31

Occupation: Unemployed teacher

Area of residence: Village in Jenin area, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: Early 1993

Duration of interrogation: 45 days

Place of interrogation: Al-Far'a

Accusations made during interrogation: Leader of Fatah's youth wing in the village

Formal charges: Same; released on bail and awaiting trial at time of HRW interview

Date of interview: April 1, 1993

Place of interview: Lawyer's office in Jenin

Name: I. M.

Age: 17

Occupation: Unemployed

Area of residence: Dir el-Balah refugee camp, Gaza Strip

Approximate period of interrogation: January 1993

Duration of interrogation: 16 days

Place of interrogation: Beach facility

Accusations made during interrogation: Aiding fugitives

Formal charges: None

Date of interview: February 20, 1993

Place of interview: Home in Dir el-Balah camp

Name: Ali A.

Age: 25

Occupation: Unemployed

Area of residence: Ramallah, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: December 1992-January 1993

Duration of interrogation: 3 days

Place of interrogation: Al-Far'a

Accusations made during interrogation: Membership in Hamas, stone throwing, burning tires

Formal charges: None, but placed in administrative detention for one month

Date of interview: February 20, 1993

Place of interview: Home in Ramallah

Name: I. K.

Age: 20

Occupation: Unemployed, day laborer

Area of residence: Khan Yunis refugee camp, Gaza Strip

Approximate period of interrogation: December 1992-January 1993

Duration of interrogation: 29 days

Place of interrogation: Beach facility

Accusations made during interrogation: Membership in an outlawed organization (the Arab Liberation Front), stone throwing, throwing of Molotov cocktails

Formal charges: None

Date of interview: February 13, 1993

Place of interview: Lawyer's office in Khan Yunis

Name: H. D.

Age: 18

Occupation: Unemployed

Area of residence: Ramallah area, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: Winter 1992-1993

Duration of interrogation: 40 days

Place of interrogation: Dhahiriya

Accusations made during interrogation: Throwing stones at Israeli troops, organizing local youths for intifada activities

Formal charges: Throwing stones, painting nationalist graffiti, distributing nationalist leaflets, blocking traffic; convicted in military court trial and sentenced to two-and-a-half months in prison and a fine of 3,000 shekels (U.S. $960). Prison sentence corresponded to time already served.

Place of Interview: Ramallah

Name: Y. D.

Age: 20

Occupation: Unemployed

Area of residence: Ramallah, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: December 1992

Duration of interrogation: 17 days

Place of interrogation: Dhahiriya

Accusations made during interrogation: Membership in an illegal organization, throwing stones and Molotov cocktails, interrogation of suspected Palestinian collaborators

Formal charges: None

Date of interview: February 23, 1993

Place of interview: Home in Ramallah

Name: Muhammad Anis abu Hikmeh

Age: 21

Occupation: Student at a university in the West Bank

Area of residence: Al-Bireh, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: November-December 1992

Duration of interrogation: 22 days

Place of interrogation: Dhahiriya

Accusations made during interrogation: Membership in an illegal organization, leadership of activists at the local level, interrogation of suspected Palestinian collaborators

Formal charges: None, but placed in administrative detention for three months

Date of interview: March 25, 1993

Place of interview: Home in al-Bireh

Name: Yasir Abdullah Salman Mughari

Age: 22

Occupation: Unemployed

Area of residence: Nuseirat refugee camp, Gaza Strip

Approximate period of interrogation: November-December 1992

Duration of interrogation: 22 days

Place of interrogation: Beach facility

Accusations made during interrogation: Membership in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, "intifada activities"

Formal charges: Unknown; released on bail pending trial; disposition of case unknown

Date of interview: February 26, 1993

Place of interview: Nuseirat refugee camp

Name: O. T.

Age: 23

Occupation: Political science student at a West Bank university

Area of residence: Jenin area, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: September-October 1992

Duration of interrogation: 25 days

Place of interrogation: Al-Far'a

Accusations made during interrogation: Membership in Fatah, throwing stones at Israeli troops

Formal charges: Membership in an illegal organization; convicted in military court and sentenced to two months and eight days. Prison sentence corresponded to time already served

Date of interview: April 1, 1993

Place of interview: Lawyer's office in Jenin

Name: A. (Refused to supply name to HRW)

Age: 21

Occupation: Unemployed

Area of residence: Jenin, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: August 1992

Duration of interrogation: 18 days

Place of interrogation: Al-Far'a

Accusations made during interrogation: Membership in an illegal organization, "intifada activities"

Formal charges: None, but placed in administrative detention for six months

Date of interview: April 1, 1993

Place of interview: Lawyer's office in Jenin

Name: Ah. al-M.

Age: 23

Occupation: Unemployed

Area of residence: Bethlehem, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: Early summer 1992

Duration of interrogation: 50 days

Place of interrogation: Dhahiriya

Accusations made during interrogation: Membership in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, throwing Molotov cocktails at Israeli troops, interrogating suspected Palestinian collaborators

Formal charges: None

Date of interview: March 30, 1993

Place of interview: Home in Bethlehem area

Testimonies Collected by Lawyers from Persons Still in Detention

Name: U. Gh.

Age: 23

Occupation: clerk

Area of residence: Ramallah, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: Early autumn 1993

Duration of interrogation: Over two months

Place of interrogation: Ramallah prison

Accusations made during interrogation: Membership in Hamas and incitement by giving slogans to a writer

Formal charges: Not known, was in pre-trial detention at time of interview

Date of interview: Interview by Attorney Ahmed Sayyad on October 25, 1993

Place of interview: Ramallah prison

Name: Nader Raji Mikhail Qumsiyeh

Age: 25

Occupation: Unknown

Area of residence: Beit Sahour, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: May 6-11, 1993

Duration of interrogation: 6 days

Place of interrogation: Dhahiriya

Accusations made during interrogation: Membership in an illegal organization, "intifada activities"

Formal charges: None, but placed in administrative detention for four months, reduced to two and-a-half months on appeal

Date of interview: Interview by Attorney Tamar Pelleg-Sryck on June 7, 1993

Place of interview: Ketziot detention center

Name: Ribhi Shukeir

Age: Approximately 35

Occupation: Unknown

Area of residence: A-Zawiya village, Tulkarm area, West Bank

Approximate period of interrogation: March-May 1993

Duration of interrogation: 52 days

Place of interrogation: Tulkarm prison

Accusations made during interrogation: Senior member of an illegal organization (Fatah), and participation in armed activities

Formal charges: None, but given a four-month administrative detention order, reduced on appeal to three months

Date of interview: Interview by Attorney Tamar Pelleg-Sryck, during interrogation

Place of interview: Tulkarm prison

Name: Muhammad Abd al-Mouata Muhammad Sa'd

Age: Unknown

Occupation: Unknown

Area of residence: Gaza Strip

Approximate period of interrogation: February 1993

Duration of interrogation: Unknown

Place of interrogation: Gaza prison, Ashkelon prison

Accusations made during interrogation: Killing suspected Palestinian collaborators, armed attacks on Israeli troops

Formal charges: Specific charges not known

Date of interview: Interview by Attorney Tamar Pelleg-Sryck on February 14, 1993

Place of interview: Ashkelon prison

Name: Na'im Ibrahim abu Seif

Age: Unknown

Occupation: Unknown

Area of residence: Gaza Strip

Approximate period of interrogation: February 1993

Duration of interrogation: Unknown

Place of interrogation: Gaza prison, Ashkelon prison

Accusations made during interrogation: Killing of suspected Palestinian collaborators, carrying out armed attacks on Israeli forces

Formal charges: Unknown, awaiting trial

Date of interview: Interview by Attorney Tamar Pelleg-Sryck on February 14, 1993

Place of interview: Ashkelon prison

A review of trends in Israeli interrogation practices in the occupied territories can be divided into two periods: from 1967 to 1987, the year the Landau Commission report was issued and endorsed by the government; and from 1987 to the present.

Between 1967 and November 1987, the overall position of Israeli governments was that interrogators did not employ coercive methods during interrogations. In public, officials flatly denied allegations, by the media, human rights organizations, and others, that ill-treatment or torture was common.

For example, in response to a ground-breaking exposé of Israeli interrogation methods published by the Sunday Times of London on June 19, 1977, the Israeli Embassy in London ridiculed the article's main charge that torture "is organized so methodically that it cannot be dismissed as a handful of 'rogue cops' exceeding orders." Referring to the Times' description of interrogations conducted at the Russian Compound police station in Jerusalem, the embassy wrote in the July 3, 1977 issue of the paper:

A place such as the Jerusalem local police station is ominously termed "a detention and interrogation centre" in order to try and create a suitable mise en scène for the Sunday Times horror fiction. Yet this local police station is in the centre of town and, as every Jerusalem lawyer and journalist is aware, local police are perfectly willing to allow visitors....[A]ny Jerusalem resident who has lost a camera will also be visiting these "barracks."

Israel police and security have every reason to refrain from use of force. Such use of force is a serious criminal offence, and where cases of police brutality have been

found in the past, police officers have been prosecuted, and it is Israel's policy to do so in the future.

Furthermore, as has been emphasized, any statement obtained by such methods is inadmissible.1

In the military courts in the occupied territories - where the bulk of Palestinians suspected of security offenses are tried - GSS agents routinely lied to military judges when rebutting allegations of torture by Palestinians, according to the Landau Commission report (see below for a discussion of the report's findings). In the overwhelming majority of cases, military judges accepted the security agents' version of events, and the coerced confessions were allowed to stand as evidence.