MONGABAY.COM
Mongabay.com seeks to raise interest in and appreciation of wild lands and wildlife, while examining the impact of emerging trends in climate, technology, economics, and finance on conservation and development (more)
WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
|
|
Israel
Index
Local law in the occupied territories combined Jordanian and
Ottoman legislation and regulations from the Mandate period,
greatly extended by Israeli military orders affecting a broad range
of political and social activities. The law applied to most
criminal and civil matters in the West Bank. In the Gaza Strip,
local law was based mainly on British mandatory law, as modified by
Israel. Palestinians accused of nonsecurity offenses were tried in
the local Arab court system, which consisted of nine magistrate
courts, three district courts, and the one Court of Appeal in Ram
Allah in the West Bank. In 1985 the magistrate courts decided more
than 36,000 cases, the district courts more than 1,300 cases, and
the Court of Appeal 1,600 cases. Local courts had no power in cases
involving land, and Israeli residents could not be brought to trial
or sued in them. Any judicial proceeding could be halted and
transferred to a military court by the military government. The
local courts had low standing, lacking the means to execute court
decisions, with the result that in many cases judgments were not
implemented.
The Israeli court system was empowered, under emergency
regulations enacted by the Knesset, to try offenses committed in
the occupied territories by Israelis and foreign visitors. Israeli
citizens were tried under Israeli law, and were immune from charges
based on local law. Military courts were empowered to try residents
of the occupied territories for criminal offenses based on local
law and security offenses as defined in military government
regulations. Military courts were generally composed of three
judges, one of whom must be a lawyer. Occasionally, a single
military judge tried cases in which the maximum sentence did not
exceed five years. There was no appeal from judgments of the
military courts. In early 1988, the Supreme Court urged that an
appeal system be established, although it did not have the power to
impose such a change. This recommendation was rejected by the
government as a budgetary burden and a sign of weakness in the
campaign against terrorism.
Persons held on security grounds were not granted bail and were
denied access to counsel or other outside contacts for a period of
eighteen days, during which they could be held in custody without
formal charges. Access could be denied indefinitely if the
authorities believed access would impede the investigation. Many
security cases involved secret evidence, access to which was denied
to the accused and to his attorney. Convictions often were based on
confessions recorded in Hebrew, which most prisoners did not
understand.
International human rights organizations complained of
systematic mistreatment of prisoners held on security grounds.
Amnesty International reported that agents of Shin Bet extracted
confessions by beatings, extended solitary confinement, immersion
in cold water, and "hoodings." In most security cases, confessions
were the only evidence leading to conviction.
The military authorities also could impose administrative
detentions and deportations. Administrative detentions normally had
required confirmation by a military judge, but this step was
abolished in 1988. During 1987, 120 Palestinians were subjected to
administrative detention and 9 were deported. As a result of the
violence during 1988, however, these measures were applied on a
large scale. During the first six months of 1988, at least 18,000
Palestinians were taken into custody at various times; of about
5,000 Palestinians being held at mid-year, nearly half were
administrative detainees. A further thirty-five had been deported.
It was often difficult for relatives or lawyers to obtain
confirmation of the detention or learn where the detainee was being
held. Detentions could be appealed before a military judge whose
decision was final. The brief appeal hearing was described as
little more than a ritual.
Data as of December 1988
|
|