Israel administratively detains activist against Separation Barrier (Michele, un commento pls)
.sergio.
Muhammad Othman, 33, a resident of Jayyus, Qalqiliya District, was
arrested at the Allenby Bridge on 22 September 2009 as he was
returning to Ramallah from Norway. Othman, an activist in the struggle
against construction of the Separation Barrier, had gone to Norway to
hold meetings and give lectures regarding the struggle.
Othman’s detention was extended a few times by the military court
until 22 November, when the Military Appeals Court ruled that he must
be released since the military prosecution had not shown any progress
in the investigation and had failed to provide any evidence or basis
for any charges against him. The next day, 23 November, OC Central
Command signed an order administratively detaining Othman for three
months and two days. The military court subsequently approved the
order.
The fact that Othman was placed in administrative detention after two
months of detention, during which the Judge Advocate General’s Office
was unable to draft an indictment, demonstrates Israel’s prohibited
use of administrative detention.
Administrative detention is a deterrent, not a punitive, means, so it
may not be used as a substitute for punishment of the detainee for his
past acts. Administrative detention is legally justified only under
exceptional circumstances, when the person poses an immediate danger
to state security and other means have been shown to be ineffective in
preventing the danger. The person’s past acts may not be used to
justify administrative detention, except to the extent that they
indicate that he poses a future threat.
As a result, it is clear that the prosecution’s failure to gather
evidence that justifies the filing of an indictment against Othman for
acts he allegedly committed does not justify holding him in
administrative detention. In such cases, the administrative detention
becomes an illegal substitute for criminal punishment.
In the sixty days during which Othman was detained, the prosecution
contended that he needed to be held in custody for investigation, and
submitted privileged material to the court that Othman and his
attorney were not permitted to see. His transfer to administrative
detention after being held in custody for two months, during which he
was not formally charged with any offense, strengthens the suspicion
that this measure serves, in this case, as an easy and cheap
alternative to a criminal prosecution: when the authorities failed to
prosecute him for offenses he was ostensibly suspected of, they
decided to administratively detain him, a procedure in which the level
of proof necessary to warrant the detention is significantly lower
than in a criminal action and most of the information remains
privileged.
For years, B'Tselem has objected to Israel’s sweeping use of
administrative detention. As stated in the report that B'Tselem and
HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual recently published,
during the second intifada, Israel held more than 1,000 Palestinians
in administrative detention at one time. In recent months, there has
been a steady drop in the number of administrative detainees: on 30
September 2009, Israel held 335 Palestinians in administrative
detention, among them three women and one minor. Some 37 percent of
the detainees have been held for six months to one year, some 33
percent for one to two years, and 28 Palestinians now being held have
been in administrative detention for two years to four years without
interruption. One Palestinian has been administratively detained for
more than four and a half years.
The report stresses that one of the main problems in the
administrative-detention procedure is that most of it is privileged,
and therefore it does not meet accepted due-process standards. The
judicial-review apparatus regarding administrative detention creates a
semblance of a fair legal system. In practice, however, it denies the
detainees any possibility to reasonably defend themselves against the
allegations made against them. In the great majority of cases, the
judges declare the evidence privileged and suffice with written
reports submitted to them by the Israeli Security Agency in the
absence of the detainee and the detainee’s attorney. This practice
makes it impossible for the detainee to refute the allegations against
him or to present alternative evidence.
B'Tselem reiterates its long-standing demand that Israel release all
the administrative detainees or prosecute them, where the evidence
warrants it, in accordance with the due-process standards set forth in
international law.