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, and to the resolution it adopted at its 191st session (October 2012),

Taking into account the letter of 6 January 2013 from the Diplomatic Advisor to the Speaker of the Knesset and the report of 11 March 2013 by the delegation of the Committee on Middle East Questions on its mission to Israel and Palestine,

Recalling the following: the parliamentarians concerned were elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council on the Electoral Platform for Change and Reform and arrested following the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier on 25 June 2006; they were prosecuted and found guilty of membership of a terrorist organization (Hamas), of holding a seat in parliament on behalf of that organization, of providing services to it by sitting on parliamentary committees, and of supporting an illegal organization; they were sentenced to prison terms of up to 40 months,

Also recalling that, while most of the parliamentarians concerned were released after serving their sentences, many were subsequently rearrested, sometimes several times, and placed in administrative detention,

Considering that the letter from the Diplomatic Advisor to the Speaker of the Knesset states that the following five members of the Palestinian Legislative Council are currently in administrative detention and provides the following details in this regard:

• Mr. Basim Al-Zarrer was arrested on 22 November 2012; the Military Commander issued an order that he be placed in administrative detention for a period of six months, until 22 May 2013; the administrative order was presented for judicial review on 28 November and 5 December 2012; on 5 December, Mr. Al-Zarrer’s attorney, Mr. Fadi Kawasme, asked the Court to postpone the review since he intended to suggest an alternative to arrest to the relevant authorities; it appears that a decision on the order is pending;

• Mr. Fathi Qarawi was arrested on 23 November 2012; the Military Commander issued an order that he be placed in administrative detention for a period of three months, from 3 December 2012 to 23 February 2013; according to the Israeli authorities, Mr. Qarawi is a member of the Reform and Change Party, which is a faction of Hamas; the administrative order was presented for judicial review before a military judge on 10 December 2012 and approved for the whole period; Mr. Qarawi has appealed the decision;

• Mr. Nayef Al-Rojoub was arrested on 5 December 2010; since then, a number of orders have been issued for his administrative detention and subsequently approved in judicial reviews; according to the Israeli authorities, the most recent order was issued for a period of six months, until 27 May 2013, since new information had been received that Mr. Al-Rojoub, who is a senior Hamas member, continues to organize and order the execution of terrorist activities endangering public security from his cell; the administrative order was presented for judicial review on 4 December 2012; on that date, the judge decided to shorten the order, which will now expire on 27 March 2013;

• Mr. Mahmoud Al-Ramahi was arrested on 22 November 2012; the Military Commander issued an order that he be placed in administrative detention for a period of six months, from 25 November 2012 to 22 May 2013; according to the Israeli authorities, Mr. Al-Ramahi is a senior Hamas member involved in prominent and recent activities that constitute a clear and immediate threat to public and regional security; the order was presented for judicial review on 28 November 2012 and approved for the whole period;

• Mr. Yaser Mansour was arrested on 24 November 2012; the Military Commander issued an order that he be placed in administrative detention for a period of six months, from 26 November 2012 until 24 May 2013; the Israeli authorities affirm that Mr. Mansour is a senior Hamas member currently involved in Hamas activities and thus endangers public and regional security; the administrative order was presented for judicial review on 29 November 2012 and approved for the whole period,

• Mr. Hasan Yousef was arrested in July 2012 and a criminal indictment issued against him; according to the Israeli authorities, Mr. Yousef is charged with being a member of and active in Hamas: in September 2011, he allegedly started attempting to establish a sub-committee of Hamas leaders in the Ramallah area, in order to revive and strengthen the organization’s activities in the West Bank;

• Mr. Ahmad Mubarak was arrested in July 2012 and a criminal indictment issued against him; according to the Israeli authorities, Mr. Mubarak is charged with being a member of and active in the above-mentioned sub-committee and with providing assistance to Hamas;

• Mr. Emad Nofal was arrested on 22 November 2012; the Military Commander issued an order that he be placed in administrative detention for a period of six months, from 26 November 2012 to 22 May 2013; according to the Israeli authorities, Mr. Nofal is a senior Hamas member and a member of the outlawed Atslah WaTa’ir party, which is part of Hamas; the Israeli authorities affirm that Mr. Nofal conducted various activities on behalf of Hamas; the administrative order was presented for judicial review on 3 December 2012; however, according to the Israeli authorities, it was then decided to file criminal charges against Mr. Nofal since the prosecutor held that unclassified information made this possible; on 6 December 2012, an indictment was issued against Mr. Nofal and he was charged with participating in an assembly of an unlawful association; according to the indictment, in 2011 he participated in an illegal Hamas parade in the Qalqilia area; he has been remanded in custody until the end of the criminal proceedings;

• The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the exceptional measure of administrative detention, which is usually ordered for six months but can in fact be prolonged indefinitely, can only be applied if there is current and reliable information to show that the person poses a specific and concrete threat or if the confidential nature of the intelligence and the security of the sources prohibit the presentation of evidence in an ordinary criminal procedure; there are two avenues of judicial review, namely the independent and impartial military courts, which have the authority to assess the material relevant to the detainee in question in order to determine whether the decision to detain him/her was reasonable given his/her general rights to a fair trial and freedom of movement, and military prosecution, which implements a “cautious and level-headed” policy in the use of administrative detention, an approach that has resulted in fewer administrative detention orders;

• In his letter of 4 January 2012, the Speaker of the Knesset stressed that those detained had the right to appeal their detention or other aspects of their case before an instance of appeal within the military justice system and to petition Israel’s Supreme Court;

• In his letter of 6 January 2013, the Diplomatic Advisor to the Speaker of the Knesset stated that due process was strictly adhered to by all Israeli authorities and that all relevant information was presented to the courts before decisions were taken concerning any individual; he underlined that in 2012 Israel had significantly decreased the number of people held in administrative detention in general and of Hamas PLC members in particular; in the previous six months, it had released 18 Hamas PLC members from administrative detention; as of 31 December 2012, only five Hamas PLC members were being held in administrative detention;

• Human rights organizations in and outside Israel have repeatedly stressed that administrative detention is usually motivated by a “security threat”, but that the scope and nature of the threat are not specified and the evidence is not disclosed; although administrative detainees are entitled to appeal, this right is ineffective as the detainees and their lawyers do not have access to the information on which the orders are based and are therefore unable to present a meaningful defence,

Recalling the following information on file with regard to the revocation of the residence permits of three PLC members: in May 2006, the then Israeli Minister of the Interior revoked the Jerusalem residence permits of Mr. Muhammad Abu-Teir, Mr. Muhammad Totah and Mr. Ahmad Attoun, arguing that they had shown disloyalty to Israel by holding seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council; the order was not implemented owing to their arrest in June 2006; after their release in May/June 2010, the three men were immediately notified that they had to leave East Jerusalem; Mr. Abu-Teir was ordered to leave by 19 June 2010 and, refusing to do so, was arrested on 30 June 2010 and later deported to the West Bank; the other two parliamentarians were ordered to leave by 3 July 2010 and, likewise refusing to comply with the order, took refuge in the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) building in Jerusalem, from which they were removed by the Israeli authorities on 26 September 2011 and 23 January 2012, respectively; it appears that Mr. Totah has been remanded in custody since then; in response to a petition against the revocation of the residence permits and the deportation orders to the Supreme Court, on 23 October 2011 the Court asked the government to respond within 30 days to the claim that the Minister of the Interior did not have legal authority to revoke a residence permit; considering that, according to the letter from the Diplomatic Advisor to the Speaker of the Knesset, after several delays, the government submitted its response in July 2012 and the next hearing was scheduled for 16 January 2013,

Bearing in mind, lastly, that, in its concluding observations on the third periodic report of Israel under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,^* the United Nations Human Rights Committee recommended inter alia that all persons under Israel’s jurisdiction and effective control be afforded full enjoyment of the rights enshrined in the Covenant,

Considering that parliamentary elections were held in Israel on 22 January 2013,

1. Thanks the Diplomatic Advisor to the Speaker of the Knesset for the extensive information provided in his letter;

2. Would appreciate receiving a copy of the indictments in the cases of the three PLC members who, according to the Israeli authorities, are subject to criminal prosecution, so as to understand the facts underpinning the charges; notes that the latter are primarily related to membership of and activity in Hamas; recalls in this regard its previous concerns that the PLC members who were sentenced shortly after the 2006 elections were not convicted on specific criminal charges but rather on account of their political affiliation;

3. Wishes to know if, as reported by the sources, Mr. Totah is also being prosecuted and, if so, on what grounds;

4. Acknowledges that the Israeli authorities have greatly diminished the use of administrative detention; is nevertheless concerned that five PLC members remain detained under administrative orders; wonders how Mr. Al-Rojoub can continue to organize and execute terrorist activities from his cell; wishes to receive clarification on this point; wishes to know also if Mr. Al-Zarrer remains in administrative detention, as his lawyer had proposed an alternative; 

5. Remains keen to understand how, in cases of administrative detention, which often rely on classified evidence, those held in detention can fully benefit from due process in practice and can effectively challenge their deprivation of liberty, as the authorities affirm; appreciates, therefore, the invitation to attend one or more judicial reviews in the cases of PLC members in administrative detention; requests the Secretary General to make the necessary arrangements for a Committee member to attend one or several review hearings;

6. Reiterates its concernsabout the decision to revoke the residence permits of three PLC members and how it was implemented; considers that the revocation is at odds with the Hague Convention (IV) of October 1907, which is considered to enshrine rules of customary international law and Article 45 of which stipulates that the inhabitants of occupied territory, such as East Jerusalem, may not be compelled to swear allegiance to the occupying power; sincerely hopes that the Supreme Court will rule on the petition speedily, taking full account of Israel’s international obligations, and wishes to be kept informed in this regard;

7. Requests the Secretary General to convey this resolution to the new Israeli parliamentary authorities and the sources, inviting them to provide the requested information;

8. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and to report back to it in due course.

---

* CCPR/C/ISR/CO/3

---

Note: you can download a complete electronic version of the brochure "Results of the 128th IPU Assembly and related meetings" in PDF format (file size 1'058 Kb approximately). This version requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, which you can download free of charge.

HOME PAGEHUMAN RIGHTSMAIN AREAS OF ACTIVITYIPU STRUCTURE AND DOCUMENTS