Administrative detention in Zio-Nazi Camp's

NOVANEWS
Illustration photo.

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.

Over the years, Israel has held thousands of Palestinians in administrative detention, for periods ranging from several months to several years. The highest number of administrative detainees was documented during the first intifada. On 5 November 1989, Israel was holding 1,794 Palestinians in administrative detention. In the early and mid-1990s, the number of administrative detainees ranged from 100 to 350 at any given moment, and at the end of the decade, there were no more than a few dozen detainees held at the same time. On 13 December 2000, two and a half months after the second intifada erupted, Israel held 12 Palestinians in administrative detention. In March 2002, the number stood at 44. In April 2002, during Operation Defensive Shield, Israel administratively detained hundreds of Palestinians. By the end of the year, more than 1,000 Palestinians were being held thus. Since then, the number has declined: in 2005-2007, it averaged about 750 at any given moment, and has consistently fallen since November 2007. In August 2010, the number of administrative detainees stood at 189 (for detailed figures). Over the years, Israel has also held a few Israeli citizens in administrative detention, among them settlers. These cases were scarce and most of the detainees were held for short periods.

Three pieces of legislation enable Israel to hold Palestinians in administrative detention:

  1. The Administrative Detention Order, which is part of the military legislation in the West Bank. Most administrative detainees are held under individual detention orders issued pursuant to this order. A similar order regarding the Gaza Strip was repealed upon implementation of the “disengagement” plan, in September 2005.

  2. The Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law, which applies in Israel and replaced the administrative-detention arrangement established in the Emergency Regulations of the Mandate period. It is rare for residents of the Occupied Territories to be administratively detained under this law.

  3. The Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law, which came into force in 2002. Originally, the law was intended to enable the holding of Lebanese citizens who were being held in Israel at the time as “bargaining chips” for the return of captives and bodies. Now, Israel uses the law to detain Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip without trial.

B’Tselem’s position is that the government of Israel must release all administrative detainees or prosecute them, in accordance with due process, for the offenses they allegedly committed. As long as Israel continues to use administrative detention, it must do so in a way that comports with international law – only in the most exceptional cases, when there is no other alternative, and in a proportionate manner.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *