The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union,

Referring to the case of the above-mentioned parliamentarians, all of whom were elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) in January 2006, as outlined in the report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians (CL/185/11(b)-R.1), and to the resolution adopted at its 184th session (April 2009),

Referring also to the study produced by the Israeli non-governmental organization Yesh Din (Volunteers for Human Rights) on the implementation of due process rights in Israeli military courts in the West Bank, entitled “Backyard Proceedings”, which reveals the absence of due process rights in those courts, and to the study of B’Tselem - the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories - entitled “Barred from Contact” on violations of the right to visit Palestinians held in Israeli prisons, published in September 2006,

Recalling the following:

• The parliamentarians concerned, elected on the Change and Reform list in the January 2006 PLC elections, were arrested on or after 29 June 2006 in the occupied West Bank and subsequently charged with standing in the election on the Change and Reform list, which, in the view of the Israeli prosecution authorities, is Hamas, and hence being a member of a terrorist organization, holding a position on behalf of Hamas by assuming membership in parliament on behalf of Hamas and providing services to a terrorist organization by assuming membership in parliamentary committees and supporting an illegal organization; that not a single charge relates to any violent activity and no accusation whatsoever was advanced in that respect; the arrests came in the context of Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip to obtain the release of Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier kidnapped on 25 June 2006 in a cross-border attack on Israeli military installations which the Israeli Government blames on Hamas and the Palestinian Authority;

• The cases of the parliamentarians concerned were heard separately by the Ofer and Salem Israeli military courts and, following a recommendation by the appeal court, most of them were sentenced to about 40 months’ imprisonment, and two parliamentarians were found not guilty but nevertheless taken into administrative detention; the most important substantive defence argument in these cases was that the Israeli authorities knew and had accepted that Hamas was standing in the election; in one of the cases, the defence attempted to call as a witness the head of Shabac and the adviser to the Prime Minister, Dov Weissglass, who had been responsible for negotiations with the Palestinian Authority regarding the elections, precisely for the purpose of showing Israel's knowledge and approval of Hamas’s participation in the elections; while the prosecution had objected to that request by the defence, the military court judge had approved it; however, on the day before they were due to give evidence, a military order from the Head of the Army stated that any information about relations between Israel, the European Union, the United States of America and the Palestinian Authority was classified, including discussions concerning the elections, and that such evidence would be damaging to the security of the State of Israel, for which reason the witnesses in question would have been unable to respond to any question; in determining their judgment, the courts finally relied on what they termed an "expert report" by a Shin Beit member (called “Ivory” during the proceedings), who testified that Change and Reform was indeed Hamas; virtually none of the appeals succeeded; on the contrary, sentences were increased and often doubled,

Recalling further the following:

• In the West Bank, administrative detention is authorized under Military Order 1226, which empowers the military commanders in the area to detain an individual for up to six months if they have "reasonable grounds to presume that the security of the area or public security requires detention"; the Order neither defines the terms "security of the area" and "public security" nor stipulates a maximum cumulative period of administrative detention. It thus allows indefinite arbitrary detention; charges against prisoners, including the parliamentarians in question, are usually those of being a "security threat", but the area and nature of the threat are not specified and evidence is not disclosed; although administrative detainees have the right to appeal, this is somewhat absurd as the detainee and his lawyers lack access to the information on which the orders are based; they are therefore unable to present a meaningful defence; in late March 2009, after the failure of the negotiations regarding the release of Gilad Shalit, Israel arrested or rearrested a number of Palestinians, including four Change and Reform parliamentarians, namely Ayman Daraghmeh (case 51), Nizar Ramadan (52), Azzam Salhab (53) and Khaled Tafish (54), who had all been released earlier, and took them into administrative detention;

• Prisoners enjoy limited visiting rights; family members need permits, which can be restricted and cancelled for various, especially security-related reasons; in many cases, wives of prisoners are not authorized to meet their husbands; such for example was the case of Mr. Mahmoud Al-Ramahi, former PLC Secretary General (released on 31 March 2009); under the normal visiting procedure, if a permit is given by the Israeli authorities, the permit holder can visit the prisoner once every two weeks for a period of 45 minutes; prisoners are separated from their visitors by a glass partition and conversations are held by means of a telephone; permits are usually issued for a period of three months and need to be renewed; the food, which prisoners have to buy in prison shops, is very bad and medical care is often delayed; moreover, following the failure of the negotiations regarding the release of Gilad Shalit in March 2009, the Israeli Prison Service decided to impose additional restrictions on Palestinian political prisoners held in Israeli prisons, such as denying them family visits and not letting them watch television or read newspapers, reducing the time allowed in the open and restricting access to prison shops,

Bearing in mind finally the consistent concerns which United Nations treaty bodies and special procedures, such the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism (A/HRC/6/17/Add.4, 16 November 2007) and most recently the Committee against torture (CAT/C/ISR/CO2, June 2009) have expressed regarding the compliance of military courts and administrative detention, inter alia, with the obligations that Israel as a party to the ICCPR and the CAT, and other human rights treaties, is bound to respect,

1. Reaffirms its position thatthe arrest, detention and prosecution of the parliamentarians concerned is politically motivated and hence arbitrary, since Israel was undoubtedly aware of and accepted the participation of Hamas in the election, which was recognized by the international community as free and fair;

2. Takes note of the fact that 15 of the parliamentarians concerned have now been released, but observes that 19 more continue to languish in jail and that four of those freed have subsequently been taken into administrative detention; continues to fear that their rearrest following the failure of the negotiations regarding the release of Gilad Shalit and the simultaneous restriction of the rights of political prisoners suggests that Israel is in fact holding the PLC members concerned as hostages;

3. Calls on the Israeli authorities to release the 19 remaining PLC members forthwith;

4. Remains appalled at the practice of administrative detention in Israel which means that any Palestinian, including PLC members, can be arrested at any time on undefined security grounds, and be held for indefinite periods without charge, being unable to defend themselves since the charge and the evidence are not disclosed; considers that it makes a mockery of judicial proceedings since people can be arrested upon acquittal or after having served their prison sentences; and urges Israel to heed the recommendations made by the international human rights bodies and procedures to refrain from such practices and to bring them into conformity with the State’s international obligations in the field of human rights;

5. Deplores the extremely limited family visiting rights enjoyed by Palestinian prisoners, including the PLC members concerned, and more specifically the arbitrariness of decisions authorizing or denying visits; recalls that Article 37 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners stipulates that "prisoners shall be allowed to communicate with their family and reputable friends at regular intervals, both by correspondence and by receiving visits"; calls on Israel to abide by those Rules;

6. Deeply regrets the silence of the parliamentary authorities with regard to the human rights concerns the IPU has expressed in this case and which reflect general human rights concerns regarding the treatment of Palestinian prisoners by the Israeli authorities; affirms that the Knesset has a duty to ensure respect for human rights and for Israel’s obligations as a party to international human rights treaties not only within Israel but also in the Territories that Israel occupies;

7. Closes the case of the 15 parliamentarians who were released while deploring their arrest, detention and the proceedings brought against them, which were arbitrary;

8. Requests the Secretary General to inform the Israeli and Palestinian authorities accordingly;

9. Requests the Committee to continue examining the case of the remaining members of parliament and report to it at its next session, to be held on the occasion of the 122nd IPU Assembly (March-April 2010).

Note: you can download a complete electronic version of the brochure "Results of the 121st IPU Assembly and related meetings" in PDF format (file size 583K approximately). This version requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, which you can download free of charge.

HOME PAGEHUMAN RIGHTSMAIN AREAS OF ACTIVITYIPU STRUCTURE AND DOCUMENTS