URU, Alm.del - 2011-12 - Bilag 50: Note fra Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN) forud for møde om politisk dialog og samarbejde den 5. december 2011

BACKGROUNDOver 700 Complaints of Torture: Not a Single Criminal InvestigationIntense public debate in the aftermath of a series of revelations regarding ISA practices in the1980s and 1990s, which had exposed an organizational culture of systematic torture, lies, ancover-ups, led to a decision to extend of the authority of the Police Investigations Department(PID) within the Ministry of Justice to include the investigation of offenses committed by ISApersonnel in the context of the performance of their duties.Whereas complaints relating to police conduct are filed directly with the PID, legalarrangements were put in place requiring that complaints against ISA employees be submittedto the Attorney General. This mechanism ultimately granted the Attorney General fulldiscretion with regards to the decision to forward complaints of torture and ill-treatment forcriminal investigation with the PID.In practice, the Attorney General has delegated this authority to an official within the StateAttorney’s office, the Director of Special Tasks3, who is not legally empowered to dictate thefate of complaints against the ISA. This official in turn automatically and comprehensively referscomplaints to a preliminary inquiry, conducted by the Inspector of Interrogee Complaints (IIC) -himself an ISA employee– in a formula which ultimately guarantees the absence of credible,independent investigations into complaints of torture and ill treatment.While the IIC has the power to make inquiries within the Israel Security Agency, thedocumentation collected is classified and therefore unavailable to the complainants or theirlegal counsel. Complainants’ testimonies are by the IIC during very brief and unannouncedvisits. It has been common practice for the IIC to falsely introduce himself as a representativeof the Ministry of Justice, and complainants’ testimonies have been taken under conditions thatreplicate the interrogation itself: in the very same rooms where ISA interrogations take place,and, in some instances, while the complainants have remained shackled for the duration of themeeting.2

As an ISA agent, the IIC is an authority whose identity is shrouded in obscurity, whoseindependence is dubitable, and whose recommendations are one alone: the closing of everycomplaint without further criminal investigation. The Director of Special Tasks invariablyaccepts these recommendations fully and unquestioningly.The result hasbeen the comprehensive closure of over 700 complaints of torture and ill-treatment since 2001by an official who lacks properauthority to make these decisions, and on the basis ofBetween 2001 and 2010,701an entirely unacceptable procedure of inquiry.4As part of its ongoing efforts to exhaust domestic legalremedies following complaints of torture handled by theorganisation, in 2010 and 2011 PCATI’s legal departmentfiled petitions to the High Court of Justice on behalf of14 victims of torture. Each of the petitioners in questionwere subjected to particularly grueling physical andpsychological torture and/or ill treatment in the courseof ISA interrogations - in all cases the closure of thevictims’ complaints have been rubberstamped followingthe IIC’s preliminary inquiry.It is worth noting that the majority of detainees whohave reported torture or ill treatment to PCATI lawyersultimately refuse to submit complaints to theauthorities, citing lack of trust in official mechanisms ofinvestigation or fear of reprisals.complaints of torture and illtreatmentwere received andprocessed by the Inspector ofInterrogee Complaints.Not one of these complaintshas led to a criminalinvestigation.2001:2002:2003:2004:2005:2006:2007:2008:2009:2010:65 complaints81 complaints127 complaints115 complaints64 complaints67 complaints50 complaints29 complaints52 complaints51 complaints

TWO IMPUNITY REGIMESBased on an analysis of correspondence received by PCATI from the Director of Sepcial Taskssince 2005, the grounds provided for the closure of complaints of torture and ill treatment, intheir vast majority, fall into one of two main categories: eitherdenialor justification under thenecessity defensedoctrine. We see these as the two main policies standing in the way of ISAaccountability today.DenialIn the majority of cases, responses from the legal authorities consist simply of a denial of thefacts, using boilerplate formulations such as: “There is no basis for your complaint”.Sometimes, these statements are accompanied by a brief explanation.The case of Jihad Mughrabi, who was detained and subsequently interrogated by the ISA inApril and again in August 2008, offers an illustration of the policy of denial. In the course of thesecond round of interrogations, Mughrabi was taken to an undisclosed location outside the3

prison in which he was being held, where he was interrogated by ISA agents and brutallybeaten. Mughrabi was subsequently treated by medical professionals on the scene and atLaniado Hospital in Netanya, where doctors documented the wounds resulting from theattack,5described in his sworn affidavit as follows:“Itried to cover my face in order to protect it from their blows. They struck me with their fistsand kicked me in the legs. I was lying on my side covering my face with my hands and my arms.They also struck me with their guns, with the butts of their guns, with the wide back portion ofthe gun. They used the guns in this way to strike my head and also my body. At times I felt veryfaint, they saw I was fainting all the time. I felt that I lost consciousness. […] I was bleedingprofusely from the head, and also from my mouth. There were cuts on my face as a result oftheir punches. For the first few days afterwards, I could not swallow because of the pain.”6In March 2011, independent forensic experts who examined Mughrabi concluded: “The sourcesof evidence [physical and psychological examinations] are consistent with the torture and ill-treatment which Mughrabi claims to have suffered”, and “Mughrabi suffers from chronic painand major depression as a result of the alleged abuse.”7In a reply dated 21 March 2011, overtwo and a half years after the complaint was submittedby PCATI on Mughrabi’s behalf, the legal authorities informed PCATI that “The inquiry showsclearly that the complainant was the one who violently attacked the security personnel of theISA. *…+ Your detailed complaint and the complainant’s account of events to the IIC areinconsistent with the inquiry forms and should therefore be rejected. Under the circumstances,I have decided to close the complaint.”8As is typical for this type of response, nodocumentation or additional information was provided to corroborate the claims of the ISA.Further, even if those claims were to be proven true and Mughrabi had indeed attacked the ISAemployees, the alleged need to subdue an unarmed detainee cannot justify the brutality of thebeating inflicted upon him, evidenced by the wounds documented by Laniado Hospital staff aswell as independent forensic experts.Official correspondence in Jihad Mughrabi’s case reveals how, under the policy of denial, theburden of proof is shifted to the victim, whose version of the events is deemed inconsistentwith those of the ISA, and thereby automatically assumed to be false. In the absence of video oraudio recordings of interrogations, from which the ISA is exempt, the interrogators’ accountcannot be independently verified. Nevertheless, wherever inconsistencies arise, the legalauthorities invariably decide in favor of the interrogators, closing the complaint without furtherinvestigation.High Court of Justice Petition on ImpunityIn addressing the policy of denial, PCATI has focused on the intersections between Israeli andinternational law, leveraging the sharp critique which was leveled against Israel by theCommittee Against Torture (2009) and the Human Rights Committee (2010) on the issue ofimpunity, combined with in-depth research into domestic legal arrangements and practices and4

international jurisprudence to undermine, in Israeli courts, the impunity regimes that allowperpetrators to continue to go unpunished.At the core of these efforts is a major High Court of Justice petition filed in February 2011,which challenges the Attorney General’s comprehensive referral of complaints of torture to theIIC. Its main arguments consist of the following:By law, the Attorney General must refer all complaints of torture toeitherthe PID or thePolice. The Director of Special Tasks does not have the authority to dismiss complaintsof torture and ill treatment, nor to create a mechanism by which a preliminary internalinquiry becomes an automatic stage in the complaints procedure.There is an inherent absurdity in the implicit requirement for additional evidence: theauthorities operate under an assumption that, where there is no additional evidence tosupport a complaint, the decision is, invariably, that there is no basis to investigate theallegations of torture. However, torture is almost always an “evidence free” crime. Thiscreates a situation in which a complaint of torture can almost never be the subject of acriminal investigation.Finally, the Attorney General’s actions are in violation of the duty to investigate allcomplaints of torture, as established under international law. In this respect, thecurrent mechanisms fail to live up to international norms for the conduct of prompt,thorough and impartial investigations, and the suspension of suspects of allegedperpetrators from their duties.

Justification under the ‘Necessity Defense’ policyA second type of response, used by the authorities in the closure of approximately 15 per centof PCATI complaints since 2003, can be categorized under thenecessity defensedoctrine.Reaffirmed by the landmark High Court of Justice ruling of 1999, which banned most of themethods of torture brought before it, the necessity defense doctrine establishes that ISA agentswho employed means of interrogations including physical force in order to prevent tangibledanger - the “ticking bomb”9scenario - may, under the appropriate circumstances, invoke thenecessity defense if brought to trial. The court ruling establishes that the necessity defensedoes not constitute a generala prioriauthorization for the use of “physical means” ofinterrogation. At the same time, however, it created deliberate legal ambiguity by empoweringthe Attorney General to devise guidelines for the treatment of “ticking bomb” cases.10These guidelines, issued by the Attorney General in 1999, have since served as the basis fordefactoapproval of methods of interrogation amounting to torture and ill treatment in suchcases,11thereby granting ISA interrogators exemption from prosecution.The authorities’ responses in accordance with the necessity defense policy do not explicitlyrefer to the legal doctrine itself, however, they generally make allusion to a “ticking bomb”scenario and indicate that, given the seriousness of the allegations against the complainant inquestion, the interrogation methods used by the ISA were justified.5

In a recent example, a letter from the Director Special Tasks in response to a complaintsubmitted by PCATI states that one of the reasons for the arrest of the complainant was “thesuspicion, based on intelligence information, of his involvement in the planning of a ‘stock’ ofHamas attacks, which could be executed at any given time.” The letter goes on to state thatthe IIC inquiry has concluded that “No basis was found upon which to pursue legal oradministrative action against the interrogators.”As is typical for responses under the ‘necessity defense’ regime, the Director of Special Tasksdoes not deny the factual basis of the complaint – indeed, in this specific example PCATI isinformed that “Nonetheless, it should be noted that the inquiries that were made into thiscomplaint and others, with regard to specific points, resulted in lessons learnt, includingchanges in the operating procedures.”12Even upon an implicit admission of the allegations,the complaint does not lead to a criminal investigation because the IIC determines that thetreatment of the complainant wasapproved,i.e. conducted in accordance with regulationsunder the necessity defense doctrine.The Necessity Defense and the Duty to InvestigateInternational law is unequivocal in declaring the absolute prohibition of torture and states’ dutyto investigate alleged acts of torture. Article 12 of the Convention Against Torture, to whichIsrael is a party, outlines the requirements foreffectiveandimpartialinvestigations. TheHuman Rights Committee has gone further to emphasize that the duty is to open acriminalinvestigation.13It is PCATI’s position that the necessity defense does not nullify Israel’s duty to conduct aninvestigation in accordance with international standards wherever there are reasonablegrounds to believe that torture has been committed, and that the High Court of Justice ruling of1999 did not intend to grant interrogators ana prioriexemption from investigation and trial. Inaddition, it is worth pointing out that, on a theoretical level at least, the position of the Israelilegal authorities coincide with those of PCATI in instances where interrogation methodsamount totorture,as there is agreement that the Attorney General’s guidelines on theapplication of the necessity defense in such cases do not apply. In practice, however,authorities are availing themselves of the doctrine to secure yet another shield of impunity toISA interrogators.In a pre-petition letter addressed to the Attorney General in September 2011, PCATI challengesthe decision to close complaints of torture in cases that fall under the above description of thenecessity defense policy – i.e. where the factual basis of the complaints had not been denied,and it was implied that the detainees in question was considered a “ticking bomb”. The facts inthe cases selected relate to particularly brutal treatment involving a combination of methods ofphysical torture which were applied to each of the complainants represented. The letter callsfor the conduct of prompt, thorough and impartial investigations following any complaint oftorture; and stresses that the requirement for an investigation is only strengthened in necessitydefense cases, where the facts are not even disputed by the authorities.6

The case of Mahmoud SweitiOn 15 February 2011 PCATI filed a petition on behalf of Mahmoud Sweiti in a case in which the legalauthorities and the ISA had admitted that ISA agents had acted in contravention of approvedprocedures when they staged a hoax intended to extract a confession from Sweiti by causing him tobelieve that his wife and father had been detained. In the words of Deputy Attorney General RazNizri, in correspondence with PCATI dated 11 July 2007:“As a rule, in a situation when a family member of the detainee is not in detention, and there is nolegal reason to detain him or her, it is not appropriate to make the interrogee believe the familymember is under detention. These principles are accepted by the Attorney General and in our opinionthey reflect the current law. In the face of these facts, and in the context of the specific matter of Mr.Sweiti, the subject of your complaint, it is agreed by the ISA and of course by the Attorney Generalthat it is not appropriate to undertake an action which resulted in the staging of the detention ofSweiti’s father.”As a result of the grossly unreasonable psychological pressure to which he was subjected, Sweitimade repeated attempts on his own life. A psychiatric evaluation conducted in 2007 revealed thatthe episode had caused him to suffer an “acute and extreme depressive reaction” as well assymptoms indicative of a “psychotic depressive condition”.In its response to the High Court Petition in this case, the State is disputing PCATI’s demands for acriminal investigation, arguing that such a request should have been made when the case was firstbrought before the Court in 2007.Sweiti's case demonstrates that even in the rare instances in which the ISA admits to the use of illegalmethods of interrogation, the legal authorities fail in their duty to ensure a criminal investigationensues.

SHIFTS IN POLICY?Changes in the Preliminary Inquiry Mechanism – Mere CosmeticsFollowing intensive legal and public advocacy efforts byPCATI, there are indications that a number of changesin the mechanism for examining interrogee complaints“…[Attorney General Yehuda]are now under way.First and foremost, in November 2010 the AttorneyGeneral announced plans to transfer the IIC post fromthe Israel Security Agency to the Ministry of Justice.While this announcement was welcomed as a positivedevelopment towards dismantling a deeply flawedpreliminary inquiry mechanism, it nonetheless left anumber of critical questions unanswered.Since April 2011, PCATI has sought, through repeatedrequests under the Freedom of Information Law toobtain information relating to the announcement.Specifically, PCATI requested details regarding the entryinto effect of the new policy; whether the serving IICWeinstein decided, with theagreement of Shin Bet headYuval Diskin, that for "the sakeof appearances" and in order toprevent the wagging of "loosetongues," and to increase publictrust in the organization, theShin Bet complaint examiner'soffice would become part of theJustice Ministry, and be severedfrom the Shin Bet.”Haaretz, 18 November 2010

has been replaced or if there are plans to make such personnel changes; whether a publictender for the position had been made public and where responsibility for recruitment wouldlie; who is responsible for his/her salary; who the IIC will report to; and whether the incomingIIC has ever been employed by the Israel Security Agency. The requests also demandclarifications as to the regulations governing the IIC’s tasks and powers, and whether findingsresulting from inquiries into complaints of torture will be made available to alleged victims.These requests have been met with unjustified delays and bureaucratic stonewalling, as a resultof which PCATI filed a petition demanding that the Court order the release of the requestedinformation.14On 25 October 2011, PCATI finally received formal notification from the Ministry of Justiceconfirming that the announced plans have not been implemented, and stating that “Aprincipled decision was taken regarding the transfer of the IIC from the ISA to the Ministry ofJustice. Subsequently, several discussions have taken place between the [relevant] authoritiesrelating to budgetary and procedural matters. This issue has been prolonged due to ourdemand that, once transferred, the IIC be in a better position to meet obligations optimally.Additional steps are currently being taken towards formulating decisions, as a result ofwhich we will have answers to all your questions, such as the selection process to fill theposition, working procedures and methods of referral to the IIC. Once decisions are made onthis issue, we will share this information with you.”15Based on official statements by senior government officials who have continued to publiclydefend the existing mechanism, the decision to relocate the IIC from the ISA to the Ministry ofJustice was made in order to assuage mounting international scrutiny and anappearance16ofimpropriety. This goes to suggest that the planned changes – which have yet to beimplemented – are merely cosmetic and not reflective of a genuine interest in bringingaccountability to the ISA.PCATI’s extensive inquiries confirm that, over a year since they were declared, the changesconsist of little more than an announcement to the press. To this day, the official charged withexamining complaints of torture against his own colleagues in the ISA continues to deem theseunworthy of criminal investigation, with the unquestioning endorsement of the Israeli legalauthorities including the Attorney General.Changes in official correspondence: a sign of increased accountability?Over the past two years, PCATI has noted a number of changes in the State’s correspondenceregarding allegations of torture and ill treatment. Following the arrival of a new Director ofSpecial Tasks, complaints of torture and/or ill treatment submitted to the Attorney Generalhave received replies which point to a slight shift in the phrasing and terminology used inofficial communications. Letters informing PCATI of the closure of complaints are now typicallyone to one and a half pages in length; and provide brief elaborations on the IIC findings leadingto each complaint closure.8

Notably, during 2011 PCATI received two faxed communications directly from the IIC, inresponse to two complaints submitted by the organisation to the Attorney General. In bothcases, the letters were signed merely ‘the IIC’ and a first name - without further indication as tothe official’s identity, or a letterhead attributing the reply to any governmental institution.Neither of the letters provided substantive information relating to the complaints in question.Overall, these developments point to an apparent departure from the terse and formulaicanswers received by PCATI in the past, and reveal a certain level of deliberation behind eachreply which was patently lacking in previous communications relating to allegations of tortureand ill treatment. While this may indicate an increased formal responsiveness to PCATI’s legaland public advocacy efforts, it should nonetheless be noted that the changes have not resultedin any visible, substantive steps towards increased accountability. PCATI is still awaitingresponses to over a dozen complaints submitted between 2004 and 2010, and it remains a factthat complaints of torture are systematically and invariably closed as a result of the inquirymechanism in place.The Duty to Investigate – Deputy State Prosecutor’s Testimony before the Turkel CommissionThe most detailed available declarations on the State’s current stance with regards toaccountability in the ISA can be found in the testimony of Deputy State Prosecutor Shai Nitzanbefore the Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of 31 May 2010 (“TheTurkelCommission”).In his defense of the preliminary inquiry mechanism under the IIC, Nitzan dismisses thecomplainants, who in their vast majority are Palestinian security detainees, as “interestedparties” with a “basic resentment against the State of Israel”, and who therefore stand tobenefit from submitting frivolous complaints. He points to these factors in justifying the needfor a preliminary inquiry in every single complaint against ISA interrogators – an argumentwhich has already been rejected by the Human Rights Committee.17Furthermore, in addressingthe absence of criminal investigations into the conduct of ISA interrogators, and the systematicclosure of complaints by the IIC, Shai Nitzan states that “many times those who file complaintsare interrogees who confessed, during interrogation, to committing security offenses againstthe State of Israel.”18These remarks are telling insofar as they shed light on the attitudes held by the Deputy StateProsecutor – a senior official who serves in a key capacity as a defender of the rule of law inIsrael. Nitzan adopts an attitude of off-hand dismissal of the Palestinian complainants assuspects; his remarks disregard the possibility that confessions may have been made underduress; and suggest that the confession of a crime in and of itself undermines the credibility ofa complaint against an ISA interrogator.Questioned by Turkel Commission members, the Deputy State Prosecutor attempts to justifythe absence of criminal investigations against ISA interrogators by repeatedly underscoring thefollowing main points: i) preliminary inquiries conducted by the IIC, he claims, are thorough andshould therefore be seen as de facto criminal investigations; ii) the absence of either external9

Concluding Observations of the UN HumanRights Committee, 2010:“The Committee is further concerned that theInspector for complaints against the IsraelSecurity Agency (ISA) interrogators is a staffmember of the ISA and that, despitesupervision by the Ministry of Justice andexamination of the Inspector’s decisions bythe Attorney General and the State Attorney,no complaint has been criminally investigatedduring the reporting period. *…+ The Stateparty should ensure thatall alleged cases oftorture, cruel, inhuman or degradingtreatment and disproportionate use of forceby law-enforcement officials, including police,personnel of the security service and of thearmed forces, are thoroughly and promptlyinvestigated by an authority independent ofany of these organs, that those found guiltyare punishedwith sentences that arecommensurate with the gravity of the offence,and that compensation is provided to thevictims or their families.”Excerpt of recommendations of the UNCommittee against Torture, 2009:“The Committee reiterates its previousrecommendation that a crime of torture asdefined in article 1 of the Convention beincorporated into the domestic law ofIsrael.”*…+“The Committee reiterates its previousrecommendation that the State partycompletely removenecessityas a possiblejustification for the crime of torture.” *…+“The State party should duly investigate allallegations of torture and ill-treatment bycreating a fully independent and impartialmechanism outside the ISA.” *…+“The Committee recommends that, as amatter of priority, the State party extend thelegal requirement of video recording ofinterviews of detainees accused of securityoffenses as a further means to prevent tortureand ill-treatment.”

witnesses, video or audio recordings of ISAinterrogations render complaints of torture a case ofthe word of the complainant against that of the ISAinterrogator; and iii) there is rarely medical evidenceavailable or other positive findings supporting thecomplainants’ allegations.Nitzan’s rationale for the closure of complaints fails toaddress three crucial issues. First, is the fact thatpreliminary inquiries by the IIC cannot, under Israelilaw, comprehensively replace criminal investigationsand do not fulfill international standards for theconduct of investigations into allegations of torture.Nor do they address the fact that the Director ofSpecial Tasks is not empowered by law to determinethe fate of a complaint in alleged cases of torture.Secondly, the absence of witnesses in an interrogationroom may contribute to the difficulties in determiningthe facts of a case but cannot determine a decision toclose a complaint – on the contrary, the role of acriminal investigation would be to attempt to shedlight on those facts.Finally, while methods of interrogation that amount totorture and ill treatment do not always leave visiblephysical wounds, research conducted by PCATIsuggests that Israeli Prison Service medical personnelfail to adequately document and report cases oftorture and ill treatment, and in many cases longperiods of incommunicado detention bar victims fromaccess to independent medical evaluations untillesions are healed.19ISA interrogations are exempt from audio or visualdocumentation; interrogation facilities are notaccessible to the Red Cross; and prolongedincommunicado detention prevents access to legalcounsel and independent medical treatment. Securitydetainees consequently undergo interrogation undercircumstances that place them in the hands of anagency in which a culture of lies and cover-ups has

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSA number of developments since the release ofAccountability Deniedpoint to an awarenessamong policy makers that the mechanisms protecting ISA interrogators and allowing thecontinued use of torture and ill treatment in interrogations are becoming increasinglyuntenable.However, in the absence of substantive changes, and in light of the continued, comprehensiveclosure of complaints of torture and ill treatment, there is a risk that cosmetic amendments tothe current system merely result in strengthened, increasingly sophisticated safeguards forperpetrators.To date, the law enforcement system in Israel and the Attorney General at its helm, have failedto live up to the demands placed upon them by Israeli and international law to adequatelyinvestigate suspects of torture and ill treatment. Accordingly, PCATI’s recommendationsremain as follows:In any case of torture or abuse, whether raised in a complaint or in any other manner, acriminal investigation is to be opened immediately. The Attorney General cannot begranted discretion in this matter.The criminal investigation must be fair, substantive, and independent and must beundertaken by an external and independent body whose promotion, organizationalaffiliation, and salary are not connected to the subject of the investigation.The investigation must maintain clear and transparent criteria. It must include a hearingof the victim of the offense, who must enjoy legal representation, and it must takeplace within a reasonable timeframe. Its conclusions must be published.The complainant must receive all the material collected in the inquiry in an orderlymanner, whether this ended in an indictment or in the closure of the complaint.If the criminal investigation ends in a decision not to indict, the complainant must beallowed to submit an effective appeal against the decision.The obligation to open an investigation obviates the need for a preliminaryexamination. In any case, preliminary inquiries cannot be undertaken by an organ of thebody that is the subject of the investigation. Accordingly, the institution of the IICshould be abolished. If the ISA wishes to examine itself it may do so, as may any otherbody, by means of its internal auditor.Action must be taken to ensure the effective documentation of all interrogations. Theexclusion of ISA interrogations from the rule requiring the videotaping of interrogationsmust be nullified immediately. The documentation must be transparent and accessible,at least, to the interrogees and their representatives.11

PCATI report:Accountability Denied: The Absence of Investigation and Punishment of Torture in Israel(December 2009).Note on terminology and translation: TheSherut haBitachon haKlali,officially known as the Israel Security Agency, is alsocommonly referred to in English as the General Security Service, or by its Hebrew acronymShin Bet.3The Director of Special Tasks generally carries out the function of “Supervisor of the Inspector of Interrogee Complaints”.4Data provided to the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel and B’tselem by the Ministry of Justice.5Mughrabi was treated at Laniado Hospital on 6 August 2008, medical files obtained by PCATI confirm he was treated for“laceration of scalp and contusion of chest”.6Sworn affidavit by Jihad Mughrabi before a PCATI attorney dated August 11, 2008.7Forensic medical and psychiatric evaluation conducted by Sidsel Rogde, MD, PhD, Professor of Forensic Medicine, Universityof Oslo, Norway; and Jim Jaranson, MD, MA, MPH, Senior Clinical Advisory Group, International Rehabilitation Council forTorture Victims (IRCT) and Adjunct Faculty Member, University of Minnesota School of Public Health.8Letter addressed to PCATI from Adv. Rachel Matar, Supervisor of the IIC, State Prosecutor’s Office, 21 March 2011.9The ‘ticking bomb’ term as defined in the 1999 High Court of Justice ruling on torture relates to the immediacy of the act andnot the immediacy of the danger; such that a ticking bomb scenario applies also if the information purportedly held by theinterrogee relates to an event that will only occur in several days or weeks, as long as there is no possibility to prevent theactualization of the event in another manner.10High Court of Justice 5100/94 Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v Government of Israel,Piskei Din53(4)817. Seeparas. 34, 35, 38.11Interestingly, the framework itself states that these exemptions do not apply to the use of torture, but rather, to the use of“physical means” of interrogation.ISA Interrogators and the Defense of Necessity, A Framework for the Discretion of theAttorney General(Following the HCJ Ruling), Letter no. 99-04-12582 dated 28 October 1999.12A gag order on this case prevents us from revealing further details as to the victim’s identity or the circumstances of his arrestand detention.13Human Rights Committee, Mohammed Alzery v. Sweden, UN Doc. CCPR/C/88/D/1416/2005, (HRC), 10 November 2006, para.11.7.14PCATI has agreed to the withdrawal of this court petition, following the October 25 communication from the Ministry ofJustice and a commitment from the state that all administrative costs incurred by PCATI would be reimbursed. It is worthnoting that the Ministry of Justice holds primary responsibility for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Law inIsrael. Its disregard for the law, and for the public’s right to access information on the machinery of government in mattersrelating to the ISA, is an astonishing phenomenon in and of itself.15Letter addressed to the PCATI from Adv. Dan Eldad, Director of Special Tasks Department, State Prosecutor’s Office, 25October 2011.16Deputy State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan’s testimony before the Turkel Commission, 10.04.2011http://turkel-committee.gov.il/content-127-b.html(Hebrew).17Human Rights Committee, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 40 of the Covenant: Israel, UNDoc. CCPR/C/ISR/CO/3, para.12.18Testimony by Deputy State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan before the Turkel Commission, 10.04.2011 (Hebrew).19The topic of Physicians’ involvement in torture and ill treatment in Israel is the subject of joint report by PCATI and Physiciansfor Human Rights-Israel:Doctoring the Evidence, Abandoning the Victim: The Involvement of Medical Professionals in Tortureand Ill Treatment in Israel(October 2011).