Convention
Abbreviation:
CAT
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE
Twentieth session
4 - 22 May 1998
Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture
Israel
232. The
Committee considered the second periodic report of Israel (CAT/C/33/Add.3)
at its 336th and 337th meetings, on 14 and 18 May 1998 (CAT/C/SR.336
and 337), and adopted the following conclusions and recommendations.
1. Introduction
233. Israel
signed the Convention on 22 October 1986 and deposited its instrument
of ratification on 3 October 1991. The Convention entered into force
in Israel on 2 November 1991. Upon ratification, Israel made a reservation
in respect of articles 20 and 30. Israel has not declared in favour
of articles 21 and 22. The second periodic report was due on 1 November
1996 and was received on 6 March 1998.
234. Israel
had presented a special report (CAT/C/33/Add.2/Rev.1) at the Committee's
request, and the Committee's conclusions and recommendations included
the recommendation that the second periodic report of Israel be presented
for consideration at the November 1997 session of the Committee. The
second periodic report was prepared in accordance with the general
guidelines concerning the form and content of such reports.
2. Positive aspects
235. Israel
has embarked upon a number of reforms, such as the creation of the
Office of Public Defender, the creation of the Kremnitzer Committee
to recommend oversight of police violence, amendments to the Criminal
Code, ministerial review of several security service interrogation
practices and the creation of the Goldberg Committee relating to the
rules of evidence.
236. Another
positive aspect was the genuine dialogue that engaged the Committee
and the Israeli delegation.
3. Factors and difficulties impeding the application of the
provisions of the Convention
237. Israel
points to the state of insecurity with which it copes, but the Committee
notes that, pursuant to article 2, paragraph 2, this cannot justify
torture.
4. Subjects of concern
238. The
Committee is concerned about the following:
(a) The
continued use of the "Landau rules" of interrogation permitting physical
pressure by the General Security Services, based as they are upon
domestic judicial adoption of the justification of necessity, a justification
which is contrary to article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
(b) Resort
to administrative detention in the occupied territories for inordinately
lengthy periods and for reasons that do not bear on the risk posed
by releasing some detainees;
(c) The
fact that, since military law and laws going back to the Mandate pertain
in the occupied territories, the liberalizing effect of the reforms
referred to in paragraph 235 above will not apply there;
(d) Israel's
apparent failure to implement any of the recommendations of the Committee
that were expressed with regard to both the initial and the special
report.5
5. Conclusions and recommendations
239. Israel
expressed concern that the Committee had not set out in extenso
the reasoning behind its conclusions and recommendations with regard
to Israel's special report. Of course, the dialogue between a State
and the Committee forms part of the context upon which the Committee's
conclusions and recommendations are made. However, in order to ensure
that there is no room for doubt, it was on the basis of the following
that the Committee found that its conclusions and recommendations
with regard6 to the Israeli special report should continue to form
part of its conclusions and recommendations to the present report:
(a) Since
the State party admits that it applies force or "physical pressure"
to those in the custody of its officials, the State party bears the
burden of persuading the Committee that such force or pressure offends
neither articles 1 or 2 nor article 16 of the Convention;
(b) Since
the State party admits to hooding, shackling in painful positions,
sleep deprivation and shaking of detainees (through its delegates
and courts, and supported by the findings of the United Nations Special
Rapporteur on Torture)7 the bare assertion that it is "not severe"
is not in and of itself sufficient to satisfy the State's burden and
justify such conduct. This is particularly so when reliable evidence
from detainees and independent medical evidence made available to
Israel reinforce the contrary conclusion;
(c) Given
that Israel itself asserts that each case must be dealt with on its
own "merits", but that for matters of security, material particulars
of the interrogation cannot be revealed to the Committee, it follows
that the conclusions of breach of articles 1, 2 and 16 must remain.
240. Accordingly,
the Committee reaffirms its conclusions and recommendations with regard
to Israel's initial and special reports:
(a) Interrogations
applying the methods referred to above are in conflict with articles
1, 2 and 16 of the Convention and should cease immediately;
(b) The
provisions of the Convention should be incorporated by legislation
into Israeli law, particularly the definition of torture contained
in article 1 of the Convention;
(c) Israel
should consider withdrawing its reservations to article 20 and declaring
in favour of articles 21 and 22;
(d) Interrogation
procedures pursuant to the "Landau rules" should in any event be published
in full.
241. The
practice of administrative detention in the occupied territories should
be reviewed in order to ensure its conformity with article 16.
242. The
Committee would be remiss if it did not acknowledge that the Israeli
delegation had initiated upon this occasion a genuine dialogue that
revealed Israel's unhappiness with the current situation (without
acknowledging any breach of the Convention) and its desire to cooperate
with the Committee. The Committee, in its turn, respects Israel's
right to present its position, even if the Committee disagrees with
its reasons and conclusions, and expresses the genuine desire to continue
the dialogue and to resolve the differences between Israel and itself.