Political Detainees
(April 1999)
Hundreds of political detainees are held in Palestinian prisons without charge or trial, some for more than four years, according to this new report by Amnesty International. "These people are being held outside the framework of local Palestinian law and in violation of international human rights standards," the report says. The complete report follows:
- Introduction
- The Rights of Detainees
- "Political Prisoners"
- "Security Prisoners"
- Palestinian Legislative Council
- Palestinian High Court
- Attorney General's Office
- Case Histories
- Recommendations
INTRODUCTION
Hundreds of political detainees
are currently held in Palestinian prisons and detention
centres without charge or trial. Most of these prisoners
have now been held for over a year, some for more
than four years, outside the framework of local Palestinian
law and in violation of international human rights
standards.
The Palestinian Authority has undermined
the rule of law by defying Palestinian High Court
judgments requiring the release of individual prisoners.
It has also ignored calls by the Palestinian Legislative
Council (PLC) and local human rights organizations
and individual Palestinians appealing for the release
of prisoners who have been held without due process.
In January 1999 the PLC passed a resolution recommending
that the Palestinian Authority cancel political detention. In
the same month hundreds of Palestinians protested
on the streets of various West Bank towns in support
of a hunger strike by political prisoners, held for
years without charge or trial, in Jneid Prison and
Jericho Military Prison. Around 40 individuals are
said to have been released; hundreds remain detained.
In all parts of the world the judiciary should act
as a vital safeguard of the rights of the individual;
in the Palestinian Authority the sidelining of the
normal system of justice has dangerously injured
individual freedoms.
The political detainees held by
the Palestinian Authority fall into two distinct
categories: those whom the Palestinian Authority
calls “security prisoners,” who are believed
to be held on suspicion of collaborating with the
Israeli authorities or involvement in selling land
to Jews and those whom the Palestinian Authority
calls “political prisoners,” who are
held for suspected membership of Islamist or leftist
groups opposed to the peace process with Israel. “Political
prisoners” who suffer prolonged detention without
trial are almost invariably those suspected of support
for the Islamist groups, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and
their detention is closely linked to pressure from
the international community, especially Israel and
the United States of America (US), to arrest
individuals involved in “terrorism.” Amnesty
International recognizes the pressure in this respect
placed on the Palestinian Authority by other governments.
However the primary responsibility to maintain the
rule of law and human rights in the areas under its
jurisdiction must fall on the Palestinian Authority
and the Authority has an obligation to resist external
pressure to violate human rights. Other governments
concerned in the peace process in the region have
a responsibility not to endorse or encourage violations
of human rights and to ensure that human rights do
not suffer in any search for peace or security.
This report analyses the practice
of prolonged detention without charge or trial in
areas under the Palestinian Authority's jurisdiction
and presents a number of case histories of political
detainees. It also contains recommendations to the
Palestinian Authority, Israel and the rest of the
international community with the aim of ensuring
that the right to liberty and security of person
and the right to a fair trial are respected by the
Palestinian Authority in the future.
Other serious concerns of Amnesty
International with regard to the Palestinian Authority,
including the use of the death penalty, unfair trials
before the State Security Court and military courts,
and torture and ill-treatment are not discussed in
this report.
THE RIGHTS OF DETAINEES
Since the adoption of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 a framework
of minimum standards to protect the rights of all
those placed under arrest has been drawn up by the
United Nations and endorsed by the international
community. Although the Palestinian Authority has
not yet the right to ratify and become a state party
to international human rights treaties, President
Arafat stated in October 1993 to Amnesty International
delegates that the Palestine Liberation Organization
was committed to respecting all internationally recognized
human rights standards and to incorporating them
fully into Palestinian legislation. In 1998, the
50th anniversary of the UDHR, President
Arafat, like more than 13 million other individuals
throughout the world, made a renewed commitment to
uphold the rights contained in the UDHR.
The detention of hundreds of individuals
outside any legal process breaches the UDHR. Article
9 affirms that:
“No one shall be subject
to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.”
Article 10 lays down the right to fair trial:
“Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair
and public hearing by an independent and impartial
tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations
and of any criminal charge against him.”
Article 8 declares the right to “an effective
remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts
violating the fundamental rights granted him by the
constitution or by law.”
The rights of any person placed
under arrest are spelt out in more detail by the
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons
under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted
by the General Assembly of the United Nations on
9 December 1988. Arrests should only be carried out
according to the law (Principle 2). Principle 4 states:
“Any form of detention
or imprisonment and all measures affecting the
human rights of a person under any form of detention
or imprisonment shall be ordered by, or be subject
to the effective control of, a judicial or other
authority.”
The arrested person should be told the reasons for
his or her detention and brought promptly before
a judicial authority who should be empowered to review
his continued detention (Principle 11); he should
have unrestricted communication, in private, with
his legal counsel (Principles 17 and 18); he should
have the right to regular family visits (Principle
19); he should have the right to trial within a reasonable
time or to release pending trial (Principle 38).
The Body of Principles, like the UDHR and other human
rights standards, lays down categorically the absolute
and unconditional prohibition of torture (Principle
6) and the right to “humane treatment and
respect for human dignity” (Principle 1).
These rights are equally affirmed
in the Palestinian Basic Law, passed by the Palestinian
Legislative Council in 1996 but not yet signed by
President Arafat: Article 11 states:
“1) Personal liberty is a natural right and
shall be guaranteed and not harmed.
2) It is not permitted to arrest, search, imprison,
restrict the freedom or prevent the movement of any
person, except by judicial order in accordance with
the provisions of the law. The law shall determine
the period of detention on remand. Imprisonment or
detention are not permitted in locations that are
not subject to laws regulating prisons.”
Article 12 states:
“Every arrested person
shall be informed of the reasons for his arrest
or detention. He should be promptly informed of
the nature of the charge brought against him and
enabled to contact a lawyer and to be tried without
delay.”
The Palestinian Authority has denied hundreds of
Palestinians arrested for political reasons these
fundamental rights. Political detainees have tended
to be held outside any legal framework; they almost
invariably are arrested without warrant; they are
not charged; they are not brought promptly before
a judge; and they are not brought to trial. The few
who have been brought to trial have received only
summary and grossly unfair trials before State Security
Courts; since 1994 a total of more than 2,000 individuals
have been held at some time for political reasons
for days, months or years in the areas under the
Palestinian Authority's jurisdiction; only one political
detainee is known ever to have been brought to trial
before a normal criminal court.
“POLITICAL PRISONERS”
There are about 120 “political prisoners” who
have been held by the Palestinian Authority without
charge or trial for more than one year, in addition
to about 100 held for less than a year. The vast
majority are suspected sympathisers with Hamas and
Islamic Jihad and most of them were detained
during mass arrests by the Palestinian Authority
following bomb attacks directed against Israeli
civilians. It is possible that some “political
prisoners” are prisoners of conscience: in
certain cases, there is credible evidence to indicate
that suspected Islamist sympathisers are being
detained for extended periods for their non-violent
opposition to the Palestinian Authority or to silence
them from speaking about matters that could embarrass
the Palestinian Authority.
Although some “ political
prisoners ” have been arrested for criticising
the Palestinian Authority and opposing the peace
process, far more are believed to have been detained
because of pressure from outside the Palestinian
Authority to put down “terrorists.” This
pressure comes primarily from Israel and partly from
the US, which has invested resources into brokering
a peace in the Middle East. The greatest danger to
the peace process is seen by Israel and the US, as “terrorism” -
attacks against Israeli civilians carried out by Hamas,
Islamic Jihad and other armed groups - and
frequent Israeli government statements have said
that the only way to halt “terrorism” will
be for the Palestinian Authority not only to lock
up the “terrorists” but also to ensure
that they are not released. Israeli government statements
do not ask for “terrorists” to be detained
without trial: they call for them to be “prosecuted.” But
Israeli authorities themselves detain Palestinians
without charge or trial under administrative detention
orders or sentence them after unfair military trials
on the basis of confessions extracted by torture.
Therefore it is not surprising that the strong insistence
on the need for the Palestinian Authority to detain
suspected “terrorists” is accompanied
by a failure to insist that this be done according
to Palestinian law and international human rights
standards.
This extrajudicial detention of “ political
prisoners ” has existed since the establishment
of the Palestinian Authority in May 1994. After September
1994 there were waves of arbitrary detentions as
a result of Israeli pressure after the kidnapping
of an Israeli soldier and suicide bombs in September
and October 1994. These detainees were normally humanely
treated but were held for days, weeks or months without
being charged with any offence or brought before
a judge. Lawyers might gain access as normal visitors,
rather than as lawyers. Often the detainees were
not even interrogated. Sometimes these detentions
were in order to detect the perpetrators of violent
acts or to detain those who might endanger the peace
process by carrying out violent acts but frequently
the detentions appeared to be at the behest of Israel.
The institution of the State Security
Court in February 1995 appears to have been as a
result of complaints by Israel and the US that Islamist “terrorists” were
being detained without charge and released at will,
instead of having been given heavy prison sentences.
Thus, from April 1995, a number of those thought
to have organized suicide bombs, recruited bombers,
or members of the 'Izz al-Din al-Qassam brigades,
the armed wing of Hamas, were tried in grossly
unfair trials - secret and summary, often in the
middle of the night, with military judges, prosecutors
and defence - and given heavy prison sentences of
up to 25 years. These trials were praised by prominent
US officials. However, the outcry at the use of such
mockeries of trials helped to limit their use, and
the Palestinian Authority, since June 1995, has again
tended to hold political opponents - mostly suspected
Islamists - without charge or trial. Summary trials
have more often been used against those whose extradition
may be sought by Israel if they are not swiftly sentenced.
The largest wave of arrests in the Palestinian Authority
was carried out after suicide bombings in February
and March 1996. More than 1,200 suspected members
of Islamist groups were arrested by Palestinian Authority
security services in the West Bank and Gaza; they
often spent weeks in incommunicado detention and
remained in prison for months without charge or trial.
Torture was widespread. Waves of arrests have continued
to occur: for instance more than 150 alleged sympathizers
with Islamist groups were arrested in 1997 and about
40 persons, allegedly linked to Hamas, were
detained and subjected to torture in Ramallah in
March and April 1998 in connection with the killing
of Muhi al-Din al-Sharif, a prominent member of Hamas'
military wing.
Detention outside any judicial process has also been
used against anyone thought to have criticised the
Palestinian Authority, including journalists and human
rights defenders. Such arrests have attracted a great
deal of international attention and local public pressure,
and the Palestinian Authority has normally released
these detainees within days or, exceptionally, months.
However, the hundreds of suspected
Islamist activists detained without charge or trial
have not benefited from the same media attention
or international support. The pressure exerted by
the Israeli Government upon the Palestinian Authority
to keep suspected Islamist activists in detention
has been great; the Israeli government has frequently
complained about what it calls “the revolving
door” - that is, that suspected Islamist sympathisers
in detention have frequently been released after
weeks and months, - and demanded that they stay in
detention. Amnesty International has consistently
raised with the Palestinian Authority the cases of
those who suffer prolonged detention without charge
or trial. Occasionally spokespersons have denied
that there has been pressure on them to arrest; however,
by the autumn of 1997 even those Palestinian ministers
who had at one time denied pressure were prepared
to agree that the pressure was immense. One Palestinian
official at the Palestinian Authority's Ministry
of Justice told an Amnesty International delegation
in 1997 that those concerned with justice knew “that
80% of those we arrested had committed no offence
either under Palestinian or under Israeli law”;
they were just being arrested because of pressure
from Israel, either because they were suspected of
being Islamist activists or to “ make up the
numbers ” and show that the Palestinian Authority
was making a serious effort to act against “ terrorism. ”
When, following demonstrations
and intense protests by families, and after many
debates and interventions by the PLC, the Palestinian
Authority eventually in January 1999 released about
40 prisoners held without charge or trial, the Israeli
Government complained bitterly. “ It looks
like a resumption of the revolving door. Actually
we have no idea who the prisoners released are. This
is another violation” [of the agreement] commented
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
“SECURITY PRISONERS”
No one knows the exact number of “security
prisoners” (those suspected of collaboration
with Israel) held by the Palestinian Authority,
but it is estimated that there are at least 250 prisoners
who have been held without charge or trial for more
than one year. The majority of these prisoners are
believed to be held by the istikhbarat (Military
Intelligence), headed by General Musa Arafat.
Human rights organizations do not have access to
the istikhbarat's detention centres and the
International Committee of the Red Cross was only
given access in 1998.
Most “security prisoners” are subjected
to torture or ill-treatment. During this period they
are held incommunicado, without access to families
or lawyers. Sometimes they continue to be held incommunicado
for weeks, months or even years after their interrogation
has ended; at least two detainees have “disappeared” after
arrest.
The Palestinian Authority is not
known to have put any person accused of “ collaboration ” with
Israel on trial for his/her actions. One reason for
the Palestinian Authority's reluctance to put such
persons on trial may be Article XVI(2) of the Oslo
II Agreement which states:
Palestinians who have maintained contact with the
Israeli authorities will not be subjected to acts
of harassment, violence, retribution or prosecution.
This provision of the Oslo Agreement was intended
to discourage the Palestinian Authority from exacting
retribution from the Palestinians who had worked
on behalf of Israel during the occupation of the
West Bank and Gaza Strip. Nevertheless, suspected “ collaborators ” have
been arrested and the clause appears to be used by
the Palestinian Authority as a pretext for depriving “security
prisoners ” of their right to receive a fair
trial.
Their detention, even without charge or trial, has
frequently been privately or even publicly welcomed
by virtually all sectors of Palestinian civil society
who regard “collaborators” with Israel
as having betrayed the Palestinian cause. Thus, especially
during the first months of the Palestinian Authority,
families of those detained were often silent about
the arrest and detention of family members, either
because they were ashamed of them or because they
feared that speaking out would jeopardize their release.
At the same time Palestinian human rights organizations
who had campaigned against Israeli human rights violations
over the previous years and were prepared to take
up the cases of “political prisoners”,
including members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad,
tended to have an ambivalent attitude towards “ security
prisoners ” whose cases they took up with more
reluctance. Many of the families of “security
prisoners” deny that they were involved in “ collaboration ” ,
and labels of collaboration have, indeed, often been
used by the Palestinian Authority to slur some political
opponents. Those detained for alleged “collaboration” are
faced, therefore, with an accusation which stigmatizes
them whilst denying them the means to answer the
charge and defend themselves, as is their right.
The Palestinian Legislative
Council (PLC)
Ever since the elections in January
1996 many PLC members have been vocal in their criticism
of the Palestinian Authority for detaining political
detainees without charge or trial for long periods.
Members of the PLC have visited detainees said to
be in incommunicado detention or tortured and have
also on many occasions visited “ political
prisoners ” who have launched hunger strikes
demanding to be brought to trial or released.
On 13 January 1999, while a peaceful
demonstration of families of “ political prisoners ” took
place outside, the PLC debated the question
of political detention without charge or trial. The
PLC called for the prohibition of political detention
and the immediate release of those detained only
for political reasons. A Special Committee was established
to monitor the implementation of the decision by
following it up with the Minister of Justice and
the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs. President
Yasser Arafat promised to release “ political
prisoners ” on the occasion of 'Id al-Fitr,
in January. In fact only about 40 “ political
prisoners ” were released.
The Palestinian High Court
The Palestinian judiciary should
be an important check to prevent the Palestinian
Authority from indulging in arbitrary exercise of
power, including unlawful detentions of political
prisoners. The Palestinian Authority has however
seriously undermined the rule of law and damaged
confidence in the Palestinian courts by failing to
enforce Palestinian High Court judgments ordering
the release of political detainees and, on two occasions,
removing judges from office without good cause. Amnesty
International is unaware of any single case where
the High Court has ordered the release of a political
detainee on the grounds that he or she was unlawfully
detained and the Palestinian Authority has immediately
complied with the order and released the detainee.
Many Palestinian human rights organizations,
such as the Palestinian Society for Human Rights
and the Environment (LAW), the Birzeit Human Rights
Action Project, the Jerusalem Centre for Legal Aid,
the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), and
the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group (PHRMG)
as well as the Palestinian Independent Commission
for Citizens' Rights (PICCR) have challenged the
legality of detention without charge or trial before
the Palestinian High Court. In most such cases brought
before it, the High Court has found detention without
charge unlawful and has ordered the Palestinian Authority
to immediately release the applicants. There are
currently more than 50 applications for habeas
corpus pending before the High Court. The vast
majority of these cases have been brought on behalf
of “ political prisoners ” but Amnesty
International knows of at least one case which is
being brought on behalf of a “ security prisoner. ”
The Palestinian Authority, as represented
in the courts by the office of the Attorney General,
has generally not been cooperative with the High
Court. The Attorney General's office frequently requests
an adjournment on the grounds that information requested
by the court has not yet been obtained, even after
the Palestinian Authority has been ordered to show
cause by the court as to why a person is in detention.
In a serious violation of the rule of law, the Palestinian
Authority and its security services have failed to
implement High Court orders for the immediate release
of detainees. In a number of cases, the Palestinian
Authority has released detainees months after the
High Court ordered their release; in other cases
they remain in detention. For example, the Palestinian
High Court ordered the release of Rajab al-Baba, who
was arrested on 17 March 1996, on 28 December 1997;
he was released on 5 April 1998. The release of Mahmud
Muslah, who was arrested on 5 September 1997,
was ordered on 30 November 1997. As of 19 March 1999,
he was still detained in Ramallah.
On several occasions, the High
Court has declined to order the release of detainees
after the Palestinian Authority has claimed that
the detainee's case is before the State Security
Court. The court has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction
over such cases. However, in these cases, even though
the Palestinian Authority has argued before the High
Court that the detainee's case was before the State
Security Court, the detainee has never actually been
prosecuted. The Palestinian Authority appears in
such cases to use the argument that a detainee's
case is before the State Security Court as a means
to avoid a High Court order against the Palestinian
Authority for the detainee's release. For example,
the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) submitted
a petition to the High Court for the release of Ibrahim
al-Maqademeh, a prominent figure in Hamas in
the Gaza Strip, who was arrested in April 1998. During
the hearing of the application on 20 July 1998, the
Attorney General's representative informed the court
that Ibrahim al-Maqademeh had been charged before
the State Security Court and argued that the court
therefore did not have jurisdiction in the case.
The PCHR stated that for two months his lawyers had
tried to find out from the Attorney General's office
why he was detained without success. The High Court
ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the case.
As of 19 March 1999, Ibrahim al-Maqademeh was still
in detention and he had not been prosecuted before
the State Security Court.
The Palestinian Authority has also
on two occasions removed judges without good cause.
This type of behaviour is in flagrant contravention
of the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of
Judiciary which requires that the independence of
the judiciary should be assured (Principle 1) and
that there should be no unwarranted interference
with the judiciary and judicial decisions (Principle
4). In August 1997 the Palestinian High Court, sitting
in a
five-judge panel, with Chief Justice Amin 'Abd
al-Salam presiding, ordered the release of ten Birzeit
University students, on the grounds that they were
being held unlawfully. Soon after the court decision,
the Palestinian Authority retired Judge Amin 'Abd
al-Salam.
In January 1998 the Palestinian
Authority dismissed Chief Justice Qusay 'Abadlah,
the head of the Palestinian judiciary. In his letter
to the Chief Justice dated 17 January, Muhammed Abu
Shari'a, the head of the General Personnel Council
of the Palestinian Authority, informed him that he
was being relieved of his duties, on the grounds
that he was over the retirement age of 60. In fact,
the law regulating the appointment and dismissal
of High Court judges, including the Chief Justice,
makes no reference to a retirement age. It is widely
believed that Chief Justice Qusay 'Abadlah was “ retired ” because
he criticized the Palestinian Authority's Minister
of Justice for interfering with the courts in an
interview published in the weekly al-Risaleh on
15 January, just two days earlier. As of 19 March
1999, a new Chief Justice had not been appointed.
Despite these setbacks for respect
for the rule of law the High Court has continued
to assert its independence from the executive by
issuing orders for the release of political detainees.
OUTCOME OF CASES KNOWN TO AMNESTY
INTERNATIONAL WHERE THE HIGH COURT ORDERED RELEASE
OF POLITICAL DETAINEES:
Name
|
Date
of Arrest |
Date
High Court Ordered Release |
Current
Status |
| Fu'ad
Hussein 'Atiya |
3
March 1996 |
18
August 1996 |
Released
on 14 November 1996 |
| Muhammad
Muhammad Ba'alushi |
6
March 1996 |
18
August 1996 |
Released
on 3 December 1996 |
| Bajis
Khalil Nakhleh |
8
March 1996 |
18
August 1996 |
Released
on 6 October 1996 |
| Khalil
Sulayman Rumaneh |
8
March 1996 |
18
August 1996 |
Released
on 30 August 1996 |
| Talal
'Abd al-Karim Silek |
3
March 1996 |
18
August 1996 |
Released
on 27 August 1996 |
| Fahmi
Jibril al-Muqayed |
3
March 1996 |
18
August 1996 |
Released
on 30 August 1996 |
| Mustafa
Muhammad 'Atari |
3
March 1996 |
18
August 1996 |
Released
on 16 January 1997 |
| Muhammad
'Abd al-Aziz Hamdan |
26
March 1996 |
18
August 1996 |
Released
on 27 August 1996 |
| Yazid
Ya'qub Abu Ghosh |
29
March 1996 |
18
August 1996 |
Released
on 6 October 1996 |
| Mahmud
Muslah |
5
September 1997 |
30
November 1997 |
Still
in detention on 19 March 1999 |
| Rajab
al-Baba |
17
March 1996 |
28
December 1997 |
Released
5 April 1998 |
| Ghassan
al-'Adassi |
29
March 1998 |
6
October |
Still
in detention on 19 March 1999 |
| 'Abd
al-Aziz al-Rantisi |
9
April 1998 |
4
June 1998 |
Still
in detention on 19 March 1999 |
| Wa'el
Farraj |
24
April 1996 |
20
February 1999 |
Still
in detention on 19 March 1999 |
| Marwan
'Issa |
16
March 1996 |
14
March 1999 |
Released
on 16 March 1999 |
The Attorney General's Office
According to Article 108 of the
Jordanian Law of Criminal Procedure No. 9 of 1961,
which regulates arrest and detention in the West
Bank, officials in the Attorney General's office
(al-niyaba al-'amma) are under an obligation
to investigate immediately any complaint that a person
is detained or imprisoned unlawfully. The Attorney
General's office must release any person who is unlawfully
detained. The Attorney General's office enjoys similar
powers in the Gaza Strip. Generally, the Attorney
General's office has failed to intervene to order
the release of detainees who are being illegally
detained. Normally, Palestinian human rights organizations
present complaints of arbitrary detention to the
Attorney General's office before challenging the
detention in courts. These organizations complain
that they either receive no response at all from
the Attorney General's office, even though it is
under a legal obligation to investigate such complaints,
or the Attorney General's office claims that it does
not have the jurisdiction to investigate these complaints
because the person is being detained by order of
a military prosecutor or for security reasons.
In July 1997 the Palestinian Authority
appointed a new Attorney General following the resignation
of Khaled al-Qidreh in May 1997. Fayez Abu Rahmeh
publicly stated that he would review the dossier
of 185 political detainees being held by the Palestinian
Authority. In August 1997 the Attorney General ordered
the release of 11 such detainees. Prison officials
at Gaza Central Prison duly released the detainees.
The Preventive Security Service rearrested all the
prisoners within 24 hours, in defiance of the Attorney
General's orders and also briefly arrested the officials
who had released the prisoners. In April 1998 Fayez
Abu Rahmeh resigned. He said: “ I offered my
resignation because I felt I could not perform my
duties because of the interference and the obstacles
placed in the way of my work by others. ” As
of 19 March 1999, the Palestinian Authority had still
not appointed a new Attorney General.
The Palestinian Authority's failure
to enforce High Court decisions, the Attorney General's
failure to intervene in many cases of unlawful detention
referred to him and the Palestinian Authority's failure
to enforce the Attorney General's orders to release
detainees on the rare occasions when he has intervened,
have undermined confidence in institutions and in
the legal system generally. In February 1996 President
Arafat told Amnesty International delegates in Gaza
that “No one is above the law.” However,
there is a widely- held perception that the President,
Minister of Justice and heads of the security forces
ignore the law in many of their actions. Detainees
and their families have often been reluctant to use
the law to challenge unlawful detention. Those who
suffer prolonged illegal detention do not appoint
lawyers feeling that they will lose money for nothing.
Instead families approach officials and other individuals
who wield political influence with the Palestinian
Authority and request them to intervene informally
with the Palestinian Authority to secure their release.
Public lack of confidence in the courts and the Attorney
General's office is another serious blow to the rule
of law in areas under the Palestinian Authority's
jurisdiction. However, Palestinian human rights organizations
have been persistent in their attempts to use the
law and the office of the Attorney General and the
High Court to seek an end to arbitrary detention.
CASE HISTORIES
The following are case histories
of political detainees, who have been detained for
months and sometimes years without charge or trial,
by the Palestinian Authority. Many of the other hundreds
of cases of prolonged detention without trial under
the Palestinian Authority follow similar patterns.
Faruq ABU HASAN
At 11pm on the evening of 8 November
1994, an officer from the Palestinian istikhbarat came
to the home of Faruq Muhammad Salama Abu Hasan, at
that time a 40-year-old postal inspector, and asked
him to come for a 10 minute interview. He never returned
home. For the first few months his wife Zahira was
allowed to visit him in detention; then, from January
1995 for more than two years he was held incommunicado.
She was allowed to leave things such as juice, food
and clothes for him, but not allowed to see him.
She wrote letters to President Arafat, the Minister
of Justice, Freih Abu Middein, the Attorney General
and anyone who might have influence, but without
success. Only in January 1998, after Faruq Abu Hasan
had started a hunger strike, was Zahira allowed to
see him. Since then, she has been allowed to visit
him every week with his three children, but he has
neither been charged nor brought to trial. His family
says they have no idea why he has been arrested and
detained; he reportedly states that he has only been
interrogated over a letter of appeal he signed with
other prisoners to President Sadat in 1979 during
his 13 years in Israeli prisons before the Palestinian
Authority was set up in 1994. It is probable that
he is accused of “collaboration”, which
he denies, but as he has never been charged it is
impossible to answer any accusations against him.
Usama and Karima HAMAD
In late 1995 Usama Hamad,
a 27-year-old civil engineer, was giving refuge to
his friend Yahya Ayyash at his home in Beit Lahya,
Gaza. At that time Yahya Ayyash was wanted by both
Israeli and Palestinian security services as, nicknamed
the “engineer”, he was reputed to have
played a major part in fabricating the Hamas suicide
bombs which had killed nearly 100 Israeli civilians
over the previous two years. However, on 5 January
1996, Yahya Ayyash was killed when a mobile phone,
apparently voice-activated, exploded while he was
using it. The killing was said to have been carried
out by the Israeli General Security Service; the
Israeli Government did not accept responsibility
but it did not deny involvement.
The same day, Usama Hamad was arrested
by the Palestinian Preventive Security Service; he
was detained at night but allowed to move about with
a military escort during the day. On 7 January 1996
he gave a press conference about Yahya Ayyash's death:
he linked his uncle, Kamal Hamad - allegedly a “ collaborator ” with
Israel and who had provided the mobile phone - with
Musa Arafat, Head of Military Intelligence. After
the press conference Usama Hamad was detained for
six weeks incommunicado in Tel al-Hawa' Prison in
Gaza. He was released on 20 February.
A month later, on 17 March 1996,
Usama Hamad was rearrested by Palestinian Military
Intelligence. This time he was interrogated but,
according to his family, he was only questioned about
the press conference. He spent six months in solitary
confinement, and is still detained, without charge
or trial, at the Military Intelligence's headquarters
at al-Saraya in Gaza. It appears that the
sole reason for his detention is because of the press
conference he gave which linked the head of the istikhbarat with
an alleged “ collaborator. ”
Around the same time as Usama Hamad was arrested in
March 1996 other members of the Hamad family were detained
and then released. Among them, Karima Hamad,
born in 1975 and married with a baby, was arrested
in May 1996 and released after one day. She was rearrested
on 19 June 1996, held by the PSS in Tel al-Hawa' Prison
and reportedly tortured. Under torture she confessed
to knowing that Yahya Ayyash was living in the house
- although, according to her family she had not known
that he was in hiding in Usama's flat at all. She was
reportedly taken to hospital four times during her
detention in Tel al-Hawa'. Later she was moved to Gaza
Central Prison where she is visited by her family every
week. In April 1998 she was visited by an AI delegation
and said she was well treated in prison. But she wept
bitterly for the loss of her freedom and her child
(during her detention her husband divorced her so she
has not been able to see her son now aged three). She
has never been charged with any offence.
Wa'el FARRAJ
At 2am on 24 April 1996 several
men in plain clothes and in military uniform came
to the home in Gaza of Wa'el 'Ali Farraj, a history
student at the Islamic University in Gaza. The house
was searched and Wa'el Farraj, then aged 21, was
arrested by the officers who told his wife, then
two months pregnant, that he was only wanted for
questioning and would return shortly. In fact he
was taken to a General Intelligence Centre in Beit
Lahya in the north of the Gaza Strip. There he was
interrogated about membership of Hamas and
possession of weapons. He says that during the first
three days he was badly beaten, deprived of sleep,
and hooded all the time, even during meals. During
March and April 1996 hundreds of suspected supporters
of Hamas were arrested in all areas of the
Palestinian Authority, after four suicide bombs had
killed Israeli civilians in February and March.
The father of Wa'el Farraj first
saw his son about 15 days after his arrest; he was
being held in solitary confinement; his face looked
bruised and there were signs of beating on one leg.
Wa'el Farraj's father started writing for help to
President Arafat and members of the Palestinian Authority
asking that his son should be released but he had
no success. He also contacted human rights organizations.
In August 1997 Wa'el Farraj was moved to Gaza Central
Prison where his treatment improved. His family,
including his wife and son, who was born while he
was in prison, are able to visit him once a week.
But as of 19 March 1999, he has still not been charged
or brought to trial. His father managed to see the
Deputy Attorney General who reportedly told him that
the Attorney General's Office could do nothing as
this was a “political” case. Wa'el Farraj
was apparently arrested as part of a group of nine
from Shaja'iya, where he lives. However, the others
have all been released and only Wa'el Farraj remains
in detention.
The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in Gaza took
up the case of Wa'el Farraj and put in a petition for habeas
corpus to the Palestinian High Court. Eventually,
on 20 February 1999 the High Court ordered his release.
But for him, as for many others, the release order
has been a dead letter: Wa'el Farraj remains in jail
without charge or trial.
'Abd al-Rahman RADDAD
In May 1997 the Palestinian Minister
of Justice, Freih Abu Middein, had announced that
the Palestinian Authority would use Jordanian law
to sentence to death Palestinians who sold land to
Jews; dozens of suspected land-dealers were arrested
though none was brought to trial.
'Abd al-Rahman Muhammad Saleh Raddad,
from al-Zawiyeh village near Nablus, was arrested
by Palestinian police with a warrant from the Jericho
Public Prosecutor on 9 July 1997. He was interrogated
about whether he had sold land to real estate dealers
said to be involved in selling land to Jews. He has
remained in detention in Nablus Central Prison, without
charge or trial, ever since. His family have many
times asked for bail without success although, according
to them, the estate agents involved in the case have
already been set free. Born in 1935, 'Abd al-Rahman
is said to suffer from a stomach ulcer and diabetes
and is frequently in hospital for treatment. His
family visit him every week. They have said that
he has to be carried into the room by guards because
of his health problems.
Jamal MANSUR
Jamal 'Abd al-Rahman Mansur, a
journalist, was arrested in Nablus by the
Palestinian mukhabarat on 4 September 1997.
The arrest was one in a wave of arrests of
suspected sympathizers with Hamas carried
out by Palestinian security forces in towns in the
West Bank and in the Gaza Strip after a suicide bomb,
claimed by Hamas, killed Israeli civilians
in West Jerusalem. However, it has never been suggested
that Jamal Mansur had any involvement in this attack;
in fact, many of those who were arrested at that
time were members of an Islamist political party
opposed to the use of violence.
Jamal Mansur was initially held
in Nablus Prison, but in December 1997 he was transferred
to the Military Prison in Jericho. On 26 March 1998
he started a hunger strike to protest against his
detention without charge or trial; during this he
lost 23 kilos in weight and afterwards suffered itching
and acute pain. A dermatologist said that the weight
loss may have caused a fluid and electrolyte imbalance.
He was transferred to Jneid Prison, Nablus in May,
1998 where he is allowed visits by his wife, Mona,
and children (he has three girls and a boy). In October
1998 LAW submitted an application for the release
of Jamal Mansur and 47 other detainees held without
charge or trial. In January 1999 he and other political
detainees in Jneid Prison went on hunger strike again
in protest at their continued detention without charge
or trial; they ended the hunger strike on 1 March,
after 36 days.
Jamal al-TAWIL
Jamal al-Tawil, a Hamas supporter
from Ramallah, had spent many years in Israeli prisons
under administrative detention. After he was eventually
released in 1997 he started to work for supporters
of Hamas detained in Israel and those
detained in the West Bank by the Palestinian Authority.
On 6 October 1998 he was arrested at his home by
five members of the security forces. No arrest warrant
was produced and no reason was given for his arrest.
The house was searched and computer discs, videotapes,
books and papers were confiscated.
Jamal al-Tawil was first taken
to the Ramallah Centre of the General Intelligence
where, after refusing to leave until she had seen
him, his wife was permitted to see him: he had not
been interrogated nor informed of the reasons for
his arrest. It was to be 31 days before his wife
was to be allowed to see him again. On 7 October
he was transferred to Jneid Prison in Nablus and
then, the following day, to the General Intelligence
Detention Centre in Jericho, 30 kilometres from Ramallah.
There he remained incommunicado: his wife and lawyers
from many Palestinian human rights organizations
made efforts to gain access to him but without success.
Eventually, on 6 November 1998,
his wife was allowed to see him in Jericho; he looked
unwell and, watched closely by mukhabarat,
they could not talk freely. On a later visit she
learned that he had been tortured for 20 days after
his arrest; he had been hung from the ceiling, often
deprived of food, and the first night interrogated
all through the night. He was accused of being a
leader of Hamas. A High Court application
challenging his unlawful detention was made by the
Palestinian human rights organization LAW. His family
were kept hopeful with promises of release but, though
he has now been transferred to Ramallah Prison, over
five months after his arrest, he has still not been
charged or brought to trial.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Palestinian Authority has a
right and a duty to bring to justice those who have
committed crimes and the Israeli Government has a
right to demand that those who have committed recognizable
crimes in Israel be brought to justice. But anyone
arrested should be released if not charged with a
recognizably criminal offence, guaranteed all other
safeguards under international law and tried in accordance
with international standards for fair trial.
To the Palestinian Authority
* Release immediately and unconditionally
all prisoners of conscience, that is all those held
because of their conscientiously held beliefs who
have not used or advocated violence;
* Release other political
detainees unless they are to be tried promptly and
fairly before courts capable of offering guarantees
for fair trials conducted in accordance with international
standards;
* Ensure directors of prisons and detention centres
admit detainees only after receiving a legal order
of detention and that a register of all detainees
and their movements is kept in all detention centres
and made available to lawyers and human rights organizations.
* Ensure that detainees are kept only in recognized
places of detention;
* Ensure that all detainees are informed promptly
of the charges before them and brought before a judicial
authority within 48 hours;
* Enforce decisions of the Palestinian courts according
to the law; release immediately all persons
whose release has been ordered by the Palestinian
High Court;
* Cease unwarranted interference with the judicial
process;
* Appoint a Chief Justice and Attorney General who
should be suitably qualified persons of known integrity;
* Establish a Higher Judicial Council with full independence
to handle matters relating to the appointment and
removal of judges and the administration of judicial
matters;
* Ensure that the Attorney General's office
carries out its legal obligations to investigate
fully complaints of unlawful detention and to order
the release of detainees held in contravention of
the law;
* Ensure that the security services and all other
members of the Palestinian Authority recognize the
rule of law and implement judicial decisions.
Israel
* Ensure that any calls for perpetrators
of violent attacks to be arrested and prosecuted
make it clear that prosecutions should only be carried
out according to the law in courts which meet international
standards for fair trial.
To other members of the international
community
* Issue a public statement condemning
prolonged detention without charge or trial by the
Palestinian Authority and calling for the immediate
and unconditional release of all prisoners of conscience
and the release of other political prisoners unless
they are to be tried promptly and fairly before courts
capable of offering guarantees for fair trials conducted
in accordance with international standards;
* Ensure that efforts to support the peace process
and to ensure security in the region are not carried
out at the expense of human rights;
* Actively use influence in contacts with the Palestinian
Authority, Israel and the United States to secure
the recommendations made in this report.
Sources: Amnesty International
1 In
this report quotation marks show that “political” and “security” prisoners
are used in the limited sense used by the Palestinian
Authority. Both categories are recognized as political
detainees by Amnesty International.
2 See,
besides news releases and Urgent Actions, Israel/Occupied
Territories and the Palestinian Authority: Five years
after the Oslo Agreement: human rights sacrificed for “security,” September
1998 (MDE 02/04/98).
3 In
February 1995 a preacher was acquitted of making remarks
against President Arafat during a sermon which he gave
in a mosque in Gaza.
4 Four
land dealers were found dead in May and July 1997,
apparently extrajudicially executed. |