Political prisoners

Support for political prisoners on hunger strike

Latest urgent appeal from Physicians for Human Rights – Israel, 10th September 2012

Since Khader Adnan went on hunger strike on 17th December in protest at his administrative detention we have seen an unprecendented wave of ongoing hunger strikes, reported almost every week on the JfJfP website. Some of these postings are linked to here.

JfJfP has written letters/issued statements:

22 Feb: We endorsed the call to Make Palestinian Political Prisoners’ Day, 17 April 2012, A Day of International Action
8 May: Statement on the Palestinian political prisoners’ hunger strike
5 July Foreign Office reply to our letter re Mahmoud Sarsak of 11th June

Information on administrative detention and political prisoners generally, from Btselem and Addameer, follows below.

19th July Urgent action needed to save Palestinian hunger strikers, a joint statement byAddameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association, Al-Haq and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel

Administrative Detention (B’Tselem note)

Administrative detention is detention without charge or trial that is authorized by administrative order rather than by judicial decree. Under international law, it is allowed under certain circumstances. However, because of the serious injury to due-process rights inherent in this measure and the obvious danger of its abuse, international law has placed rigid restrictions on its application. According to international law, administrative detention can be used only in the most exceptional cases, as the last means available for preventing danger that cannot be thwarted by less harmful means.

Israel’s use of administrative detention blatantly violates these restrictions. It is carried out under the thick cover of privilege, which denies detainees the possibility of mounting a proper defense. Over the years, Israel has administratively detained thousands of Palestinian for prolonged periods of time, without prosecuting them, without informing them of the charges against them, and without allowing them or their attorneys to study the evidence, making a mockery of the protections specified in Israeli and international law to protect the right to liberty and due process, the right of defendants to state their case, and the presumption of innocence.

As of March 2012, Israel was holding 320 Palestinians in administrative detention (for detailed figures click here)

Further information from Addamer on political prisoners follows:

Addameer, Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association gives much detailed information on political prisoners generally. Here is its webpage on administrative detention as at 10 July 2012:

Administrative detention is a procedure that allows the Israeli military to hold prisoners indefinitely on secret information without charging them or allowing them to stand trial. Although administrative detention is used almost exclusively to detain Palestinians from the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT), which includes the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, Israeli citizens and foreign nationals can also be held as administrative detainees by Israel (over the years, only 9 Israeli settlers have been held in administrative detention). Israel uses three separate laws to hold individuals without trial:

• Article 285 of Military Order 1651, which is part of the military legislation applying in the West Bank;
• Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law (Unlawful Combatants Law), which has been used against residents of the Gaza Strip since 2005;
• Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law, which applies to Israeli citizens.

Palestinians have been subjected to administrative detention since the beginning of the Israeli Occupation in 1967 and before that time, under the British Mandate. The frequency of the use of administrative detention has fluctuated throughout Israel’s occupation, and has been steadily rising since the outbreak of the second intifada in September 2000.

On the eve of the second intifada, Israel held 12 Palestinians in administrative detention. Only two years later, in late 2002-early 2003, there were over one thousand Palestinians in administrative detention. Between 2005 and 2007, the average monthly number of Palestinian administrative detainees held by Israel remained stable at approximately 765. Since then, as the situation on the ground stabilized and violence tapered off, the number of administrative detaines has generally decreased every year. As of 1 June 2012, there were at least 303 Palestinians from the West Bank and East Jerusalem being detained in administrative detention, of which 22 were members of the Palestinian Legislative Council.

Although international human rights law permits some limited use of administrative detention in emergency situations, the authorities are required to follow basic rules for detention, including a fair hearing at which the detainee can challenge the reasons for his or her detention. Moreover, to use such detention, there must be a public emergency that threatens the life of the nation, and detention can only be ordered on an individual, case-by-case basis without discrimination of any kind. (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 9).

Administrative detention is the most extreme measure that international humanitarian law allows an occupying power to use against residents of occupied territory. As such, states are not allowed to use it in a sweeping manner. To the contrary, administrative detention may be used against protected persons in occupied territory only for “imperative reasons of security” (Fourth Geneva Convention, Art.78).

In the occupied Palestinian West Bank, the Israeli army is authorized to issue administrative detention orders against Palestinian civilians on the basis of article 285 of Military Order 1651. This article empowers military commanders to detain an individual for up to six-month renewable periods if they have “reasonable grounds to presume that the security of the area or public security require the detention”. No definition of “security of the area” or “public security” is given. On or just before the expiry date, the detention order is frequently renewed; there is no explicit limit to the maximum amount of time an individual may be administratively detained, leaving room for indefinite legal detention.

Administrative detention orders are issued either at the time of arrest or at some later date and are often based on “secret information” collected by the Israeli Security Agency (formerly known as the General Security Service). In the vast majority of administrative detention cases, neither the detainee nor his lawyer is ever informed of the reasons for the detention or given access to the “secret information”.

In practice, the Unlawful Combatants Law contains fewer protections for detainees than even the few that are granted under administrative detention orders in the West Bank. For example, judicial review is conducted less often; the legality of the detention does not require the existence of a state of emergency; and, the detention “is carried out pursuant to an order issued by the chief of staff or by an officer holding the rank of major general”. In addition, the law establishes two troubling presumptions that shift the burden of proof to the detainee: first, the release of an individual identified as an “unlawful combatant” will harm national security unless proven otherwise; second, the organization to which the detainee belongs carries out hostilities, if the Israeli Minister of Defense has made such a determination, unless proven otherwise. This practice patently violates the accused’s right to a presumption of innocence in any criminal proceeding, and results in a system of indefinite detention justified by mere speculation and stacked heavily against the detainee.

• The government of Israel should release all administrative detainees;
• In the meantime, administrative detainees must be granted their rights in accordance with international law;
• The government of Israel should immediately cease using the Incarceration of Unlawful Combatants Law and take action to repeal it;
• EU member states should raise cases of administrative detainees with the Israeli government under the EU-Israel political dialogue.
• ______

September 10, 2012

URGENT APPEAL

Following a visit of the 3 hunger strikers today by an
Independent doctor from Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), it is our belief that a swift and resolute intervention is needed if we wish to try and save their lives.

PHR Israel’s volunteer doctor visiting them today, had determined that the all hunger strikers must be immediately transferred to a public hospital for comprehensive medical query of their severe conditions. Imminent life danger hovering over the three hunger-striker detainees – Sammer Al-Bark on his 112 day, Hassan Safadi on his 82 day and Ayman Sharawni on his 72 days.

PHR-Israel reiterates their grave concern for the life and health of three hunger strikers.  The advanced physical damage recorded by the independent doctor in the visit today raises grave concern for maltreatment and neglect by the Israeli Prison Service (IPS) doctors.

The independent doctor reports severe deterioration of their health condition, and advanced physical damage. the doctor reported that all three hunger strikers suffers from extreme weight loss, muscle weakness, significant decline in gross motor strength and loss of muscle tissue severe dizziness; Daily bleeding in oral cavity; Unable to carry out simple daily activities like showering and other tasks; extreme low blood pressure; slow pulse; blurred vision; suffered from several incidents of dizziness and fainting that caused falling.

Of special alert is the fact that the IPS medical staff was extremely hostile in its conduct with PHR Israel’s independent doctor, and did everything within its power to withhold medical information and intimidate the doctor. Also of deep concern is the fact that the hospital to which they were referred examined only those factors requested by the IPS and seems to overlooked complaints or other factors in the detainees’ condition – let alone order their hospitalization rather than returning them to the prison. This conduct, PHR Israel fears, puts their health and lives in further risk.

Al Bark and Safadi –  both administrative detainees – shall be immediately released, in accordance with the agreement according to which administrative detention orders shall not be extended.
Ayman Sharawni was released as part of the exchange deal that brought about the release of corporate Shalit. He was rearrested under and detained without charges or trial under a special military committee that has the authority to abolish a release and order a detention (military order number 11/186). PHR Israel believes that this is an administrative detention in a different guise and that Sharawni must be released.

PHR Israel asks that you shall do your utmost to bring about a life-saving resolution to the hunger strike.

For further details: Hadas Ziv 054-6623232

Sincerely,

Hadas Ziv
Public Outreach
PHR Israel

June 29th, 2012, Six political prisoners of PA on protest hunger strike
If the principal aim of the PA is to be Israel’s ‘partner for peace’, speaking for all Palestinians, then it follows they will crush articulate or organised dissenting voices. Chief dissenter is Hamas, many of whose members were arrested in a 2010 crackdown by the PA’s security service.. Now six of those detained – whose release was ordered by the Palestinian High Court – are on hunger strike. Occupied Palestine, PCHR and background article.

May 16th, 2012, After the ‘Great Palestinian Prison Hunger Strike’
The end of the hunger strike is only the beginning: of holding Israeli authorities to the conditions on which prisoners agreed to end the strike; the possible beginning of humane standards for prisoners in Israeli gaols; the start of family visits; the beginning of the end for administrative detention. Richard Falk, Stephen Lendman and Palestinian Centre for Human Rights greet the next stage with scepticism and expectation. Haaretz begins to write of ‘national liberation struggle’ and ‘political prisoners’.