^* continued Israel has not only ignored this unequivocal rejection of its policies and legal reasoning, but has, since September 1994, allowed the GSS additional "special permissions", granted ostensibly for a limited period of time, following a wave of terrorist attacks, which have routinely been extended ever since. Torture methods, apart form being used in special circumstances, are used against a large number of Palestinian detainees. According to the last official estimate, some 23,000 Palestinians were interro- gated by the GSS between 1987 and 1994. In 1995, following the death of a Palestinian detainee as a result of "sbaking," the then Prime Minister, the late Yitzhak Rabin, when interviewed on the state- owned radio station, said that this method had been used against 8,000 detainees. I High Court of Justice - various requests. Translation into English was prepared and published by B'Tselcm, Legitimizing Torture: An Annotated Sourcebook, (January 1997). It is reproduced herein with minor editorial changes. Most of the editorial notes herein are also based on B'Tselem's report. 2 Methods used in Bilbeisi's interrogation: (i) tying up in painful positions, (ii) hooding, (iii) airing of loud music, (iv) sleep deprivation, (v) enforced squatting, and (vi) violent shaking. The state has either admitted or refrained from denying the use of these methods. Id. at 1 The same methods were used during the interrogation of Muhammad 'Abd-al Aziz Hamdan only this time threats (including death-threats) were used instead of enforced squatting. (see note 6, infra). 3 Shaking consists of holding the dctainee by the collar of his shirt and violently shaking him. A Pal- estinian detainee, 'Abd a-Samad Harizat, died as a direct result of this method, although it was claimed that one of the interrogators held Harizat by the shoulders rather than by the collar. The state nevertheless acknowledged that Harizat may have died as a result of "shaking" in the "regular way"; moreover, the state did not exclude the possibility of further deaths as a result of "shaking". In a case filed by the Association for Civil rights in Israel v. the Prime Minister et al, HCJ 4045/95, the state argued in its response to the appeal regarding the use of shaking that it does not constitute tor- ture, as the "risk expected to the life of a GSS interrogee as a result of shaking is a rare risk" (Emphasis in the original). The case, however, has been pending. before the HCJ for over a year, and the HCJ has refused to issue an interim injunction prohibiting the use of this method pending its decision. (See Amnesty International: Death by Shaking, reproduced in 7 Palestine Y.B. Int'l L. 243 (1994/95). Ed.,

4 It is worth noting that in criminal trials, a confession obtained form persons interrogated in GSS investigations may be rejected as evidence in criminal proceedings against the person who made the confession, even if it has fulfilled the directives for conducting the interrogation. On the other hand, the interrogation which brought about the confession may have been conducted in violation of direc- tives given to the interrogator, but the Court will nevertheless accept it as valid evidence. This depends on the judicial rulings which is for the Supreme Court to determine, in interpreting Sec. 12 of the Evidence Ordinance which states that the confession of an accused will be admitted only it if is proved that the confession was made ` freely and voluntarily." [emphasis added] Landau Commis- sion Report, Part One, English translation provided by the Government Press Office. 5 The same justification for a similar judgement was adopted by the HCJ in Mohammad 'Abd al- 'Aziz Hamdan case v. the General Security Service in which the HCJ adjudged the following: "Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no justification to continue with the interim injunction." (HCJ 8049/96). Needless to say that the circumstances considered by the HCJ were the same as in the Bilbeisi case, where it was believed that the detainee, Petitioner, possesses extremely vital information, the immediate disclosure of which shall prevent a terrible disaster, save human lives and shall prevent the most serious terrorist attacks [sic]. However, on December 17, 1996, the HCJ issued another interim injunction prohibiting the GSS from "the use of physical force" against Hamdan, this time with the state's consent. On December 24, 1996, an administrative

6 This cannot suffice to prevent the GSS from torturing the Petitioner, given that the court had already allowed the GSS to "use physical pressure" in breach of the prohibition thereof in the Penal Code. Id., at 12. 7 Article 22 of the Penal Law (official translation) reads: The original text refers to Article 34(l l) which does not deal with necessity. Ed., 8 The Landau Commission was aware that its proposed interrogation methods would stand in clear breach of the prohibition in Israel's Pcnal Law of the use of any violence during interrogation, as stipulated for in Article 227 of the Penal Law, as well as, of other legal provisions regarding the treatment of detainecs, such as regulations according to which a detainee must be allowed to sleep for at least six consecutive hours daily as per the Prisons Regulations. The Commission therefore attempted to circumvent this obstacle by claiming that in special circumstances, the general "defence of necessity" in Israeli law would apply, allowing the interrogator to break the letter of the law in order to avoid "a greater evil". (As used in the Landau Commission Report, paras. 3.16 - 3.18). Adoption of such interpretation by the HCJ, which was later cited in the Hamdan case, in which the "defence of necessity" was used to justify an explicit permission for interrogators to use violence, is in flagrant breach of the absolute prohibition of torture dictated by the said Convention. The Con- vention holds the state responsible for any infliction of severe pain or suffering for purposes includ- ing, inter alia, "of obtaining from detainees or a third person information". Article 227 of the Israeli Penal Law reads (official translation): "A public servant who does one of the following is liable to imprisonment for three years: (1) uses or directs the use of force or violence against a person for the purpose of extorting from him or from anyone in whom he is interested a confession of an offense or information relat- ing to an offence; (2) threatens any person, or directs any person to be threatened, with injury to his person or prop- erty or to the person or property of anyone in whom he is interested, for the purpose of extorting from him a confession of an offence or any information relating to an offence. 9 The court's decision in allowing "the use of physical force" without excluding "shaking" can only be interpreted as permitting the use of a potentially lethal methods of interrogation. Id., at 12.