KEPT IN THE DARK

KEPT IN THE DARK

by Mission Free Palestinian Political Prisoners
 

Treatment of palestinian Detainees in the PetahTikva
Interrogation Facility of the israel Security Agency
one year ago...shortened report published by Addameer.

October 2010


The State of Israel attempts to justify the severe infringement of detainees' rights
as necessary to thwart acts of terrorism. This claim is insufficient to justify a
violation of the absolute prohibition of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment
and of torture. Furthermore, this report clearly demonstrates that Israel’s framing
of the public debate on interrogation methods as the “ticking-bomb dilemma” is
artificial: most of the detainees interviewed for this report were not suspected
of serious offenses; some were only accused of what is essentially political or
religious activity. Also, the fact that the ill-treatment of detainees continued even
after the conclusion of their interrogation refutes the claim that it is only used to
thwart acts of terrorism.

The State of Israel must root out all abuse in interrogations. This requires taking
action that will lead to three indispensable results: stopping human rights violation
of detainees, bringing the offenders to justice, and providing compensation to
the victims. In addition, it is important to conduct a thorough, independent, and
transparent investigation of these ostensible breaches and to publish the findings
in full.

detained in the facility


The Israel Prison Service submitted to HaMoked only partial information on the medical files
of several detainees. Consequently, HaMoked filed a petition to Israel’s High Court of Justice on
16 June 2010 to receive the full medical documentation. HCJ 4677/10, HaMoked: Center for
Defence of the Individual v. the Israel Prison Service. See http://www.hamoked.org/Document.
aspx?dID=Updates1031.

Routine treatment of detainees at the facility

Analysis of the detainees’ testimonies reveals a recurring pattern in the authorities’
handling and treatment of them while they were detained. This does not mean
that all the detainees were treated in absolute uniformity. Some features of the
treatment recur in every case, while others appear in most, or in an appreciable
number, of cases. Analysis of the patterns that emerge is presented in the second
part of the report.

Arrest

Many of the detainees were arrested at home, in the early hours of the morning.
Many reported that they were awoken from sleep by the sound of banging on
the door or from the door being blown open. Others awoke to find themselves
surrounded by soldiers.

Many detainees said that the soldiers behaved violently and spoke to them rudely
during the arrest, whether at the detainee’s house, at a checkpoint, or under
other circumstances. Twenty-seven reported that the house had been damaged
during the course of the arrest. Thirty-six detainees reported that they suffered
physical violence at the time of the arrest, or in the vehicle into which they were
put immediately after the arrest.

‘Ali Shtiyeh, a psychology student from the village of Salem near Nablus, was 23
at the time of his arrest. He described the event:

At about 2:00 A.M., on 14 February 2009, I was sleeping at my parents’
house. It has two stories. I was in my room on the ground floor. I woke up to
the sound of noises inside the house and suddenly saw soldiers in my room
[...]. When I gave them my name, they began punching and kicking me.
Some of them also hit me in the chest, shoulders, and back with their rifle
butts. The soldiers broke the clothes closet, and ripped the mattress with a
knife. They broke the computer, TV and stereo system in my room.

In many cases, the soldiers did not allow the detainees to say goodbye to their
families. When soldiers came to arrest Hindawi Kweirek, a sociology student from
Nablus who was 19 at the time, his father asked them to enable him to say
goodbye to his brother, who had cancer. The soldiers refused. The brother died
while Kweirek was in detention.

In some cases, the detainee was not allowed to dress and was taken in his pajamas,
sometimes barefoot. In none of the cases was the detainee told to take clothes,
a toothbrush, or other basic items that detainees would need and are allowed to
keep in Israeli prisons.

Yusef Tartir, a 16-year-old high-school pupil from Nablus, was arrested after
stabbing a soldier at a checkpoint. He related that he was treated very violently:

Lots of soldiers came into the bus and took me out, to the road. I was hit in
the head and lost consciousness for a few moments. Then a lot of soldiers,
more than ten, started hitting me with whatever came to hand. After that,
they put me in a room at the checkpoint. They undressed me completely,
cuffed my hands behind my back and tied my legs. They threw me to the
ground. There were lots of soldiers around me, and they all began to hit me
with their weapons and to kick me. I was half in a faint. Mostly, I remember
the feet kicking me [... ]. One soldier dressed me because I was in so much
pain that I couldn’t dress myself.

Transport to the transit point

After the arrest, the detainees were taken, handcuffed and blindfolded, to an
army vehicle. Forty detainees stated that they were made to sit on the floor of
the vehicle. In some cases, they were required to kneel on the floor, head facing
down, throughout the entire journey. In some instances, the detainees were made
to lie stretched out on the floor of the vehicle. Several detainees reported that a
dog was held next to them in the vehicle during the journey. Many reported that
the soldiers were extremely violent towards them.

Twenty-seven detainees reported suffering incredible pain, loss of sensation,
swelling, wounds, and scars because their hands were bound too tightly with
plastic cuffs. In many cases, their request to loosen them was answered by a
further tightening of the cuffs. The symptoms often continued long after the cuffs
were removed. In April 2010, following a petition filed by the Public Committee
Against Torture in Israel, the state informed the Supreme Court about a new
procedure that was intended to prevent painful cuffing.6 The new procedure
was instituted after the period reviewed in this report. However, information
gathered by HaMoked and B’Tselem indicates that soldiers continue to cuff
detainees painfully after their arrest. The fact remains that the authorities did
nothing to stop the practice, which was known for years, until just prior to the
court hearing.

The testimony of Munir Mahrum, from Nablus, who was 23 when arrested, is
indicative of the routine practice in this matter.

Fifteen minutes later [after the arrest], they took me down to the jeep. They
blindfolded me and threw me into the middle [of the jeep]. They told me to
kneel on the floor. There were five or six soldiers surrounding me. I think
that two of them, not all of them, hit me with their helmets during the whole
trip. Each time I asked them to loosen the cuffs, which were very tight, one
of them hit me. I told him to look at my hands, because I felt something was
happening to them. To this day, my right thumb shakes as if it’s still numb.
At Huwara, they took me to a sergeant. He took off the cuffs. My hands were
swollen and blue.

Transit stage

Most of the detainees were taken to an interim location, or a number of interim
locations one after the other, where the authorities carried out administrative
procedures and passed the detainee from hand to hand. An interim location
can be a settlement, an army base, a checkpoint, or even a road intersection.
In most cases it is a temporary detention facility in the West Bank. The
administrative procedures typically included a brief medical interview or
superficial medical examination and depositing of the detainee’s personal
items. Some of the detainees were treated violently and were degraded during
this stage, too.

Ahmad Abu Dra’, a high-school pupil from the Balata refugee camp in Nablus who
was 17 at the time, related how soldiers humiliated him while he was blindfolded
and his hands were bound behind him with plastic cuffs.

One soldier grabbed my shirt near my left shoulder and started to run. I was
wearing two pants – pajamas and jeans on top of them. The jeans fell a bit
and I couldn’t run. I asked them to let me pick up my pants, but they refused.
The soldier pulled me with force while my pants were down. I could barely run,
but I had no choice. I barely kept from falling. After a while, we stopped. I
heard a lot of soldiers around me. They were all laughing. One soldier grabbed
me and told me to walk. I did as he said, and suddenly my head hit a wall and
I fell on my back. They all laughed.

Twenty-five detainees related that they were held for a long time outside,

immediately after the arrest or during the transit stage. Many of the detainees
were not given an opportunity to take warm clothes, even though they were held
out in the cold and sometimes in rain.

Some of the detainees were kept for hours, and even days, at an interim location.
Some were held for hours without being transferred to a proper cell, and were
not even provided food. Then, another force took them to the ISA facility in Petah
Tikva. In some cases, the soldiers did not reply to detainees’ questions as to where
they were being taken, increasing feelings of loss of control and disorientation.

During intake at the Petah Tikva facility, the detainees were subjected to a full
body search in the nude, and another medical examination. Some were then
taken to cells, and others to interrogation rooms.

Detention at the Petah Tikva facility

During the time they were held at the facility, which lasted in some cases some two
months, the detainees were either held in their cell or in the interrogation room.
When they were being taken from one to the other, their hands were bound and
their eyes covered. None of them were taken, even once, to a yard for exercise.

The detainees were taken out of their cells only for interrogation, in a rare meeting
with an attorney or with a representative of the International Committee of the
Red Cross, during showers or visits to the medical clinic, or when they were taken
to a military court to extend the detention. The latter did not occur frequently, as
the extensions were generally given for eight days and more. A special directive
enables extension of the detention also when the detainee is not present, as
occurred in at least one case. Meetings with ICRC representatives took place
in a designated room, usually relatively late in the detention period. Several
detainees stated that they met such a representative only in the fourth week of
their detention. Meetings with attorneys, if they took place, were no more than a
brief exchange in the military court. Also, showers were usually taken outside the
cell. Some detainees were taken to the facility’s medical clinic.

The cell

The testimonies indicate that there are several kinds of cells in the Petah Tikva facility,
differing primarily in size. The smallest cells can contain only one person, with the thin
mattress covering almost all the floor, apart from a squat toilet. Detainees estimated
the size of such cells at about 1.5 X 2 meters. The larger cells hold groups of detainees
whose interrogation has ended, and are also only big enough to accommodate the
mattress given to each detainee. The official Feuchtwanger report corroborates that,
“the detention cells are very small (the size differs depending on the number of
detainees the cell is supposed to hold), and are only large enough to lay mattresses
for the number of persons occupying the cell.”7 At least some of the cells had such a
low ceiling that detainees reported they could touch it when standing.

The walls of the cells are concrete-grey and rough, with pieces jutting out, so that
a person cannot lean against them. Movement is highly limited, as the detainee
cannot lean against the wall when either standing or sitting, and the small space
restricts walking to a few steps back and forth.

The cells are ventilated by what appears to be an air-conditioning system controlled
from outside the cell. Thirty-one detainees stated that the air flowing into the cell was
too cold or too hot, and that their complaints about the temperature were ignored.
Maher Samaru, an economics student from Nablus who was 24 when arrested,
suffers from asthma. He had an asthma attack due to the suffocating conditions in
the cell. He was only provided with an inhaler after the attack, and another detainee
was put in the cell to watch over him. Another detainee, a minor who is asthmatic,
had an inhaler from the start. He reported that his asthma worsened in the cell and
that he had to use the inhaler more often than before.

The detainees stated that an electric bulb lights the cell 24 hours a day, and the
detainee is unable to change its intensity or turn it off. This creates severe distress
and causes eye pain, headaches, and vision problems.

Apparently, at least one of the cells is completely soundproof. In the other cells,
the detainees could hear disturbing sounds, such as monotonous dripping of water
on tin or the banging of metal doors, and also sounds that eased the sense of
isolation and disorientation in time, such as other detainees calling worshippers to
prayer. Some of the detainees noted that the monotonous noise of the ventilation
system disturbed their sleep.

Ninety-four of the detainees were held in isolation during part of their time at the facility.
This mostly occurred at the beginning of the detention period, but some were held in
isolation again later on, at times even after their interrogation had been completed. A
person held in isolation has no contact with other detainees, and not even with the jailer
who bring his meals, as they are passed through an opening in the cell door.

Muhammad Qut, an education student from the village of Madama, stated that
he had been placed in isolation after denying the allegations against him during
interrogation.

[The interrogator] took me down to the cell. He said that there was no need
to go back to him again, that he was sending me to Cell 9 and wouldn’t call for
me. If I wanted to talk to him and confess, I should knock on the door of the
cell and the jailer would bring me to him to confess.

He took me to the cell. It’s like a small grave, about 2x3 meters in size.
There’s a very small toilet in it and a disgusting smell, a damp smell that’s
hard to describe. The light is red and strong, and it makes your head and eyes
hurt. I felt dizzy inside the cell. It’s about two meters high. When you stand,
if you’re a bit tall, you can touch the ceiling.

There are a mattress and a blanket that must be dozens of years old. It’s a
joke to call them a mattress and blanket. The walls are grey. If you hit the
wall, your hand gets wounded, because the walls are rough.
When you’re alone, you feel frustrated. You feel like hanging yourself. If you
don’t have strong faith in God, you can easily kill yourself. [We] stayed alive in
the cell only because death forgot us, and not for any other reason.
I stayed there alone for about ten days. I had enough. I remembered that
Doron [the interrogator] said that when I finished everything I had to say
and confessed to the accusations, he would move me immediately to prison.
I decided to go up to him and accept whatever happens. I thought to myself, I
want to get out of here, because Doron said that if I don’t confess, I’ll sit alone
in the cell for a hundred days. At the time, I had said to him, “so be it.” But
I couldn’t stand this suffering. I barely survived ten days. I counted the days
based on the prayer times and the call to prayers that the other prisoners made.
I banged on the door for the jailer and asked him to take me to Doron.

The effect of isolation varies from person to person. Marwan Ne’irat, a plasterer
and father of six from the village Meithalun, who was 45 when arrested, related
in his testimony:

At first, I was alone [in the cell]. I told them that I’m a sick man, and
 that if something happens when I’m alone, nobody will know. So they put
another person in the cell. It didn’t bother me that he was an informer who
was supposed to get me to talk. When you’re alone, you need to talk to
somebody, even the wall. So you’re happy that they bring in somebody, it
doesn’t matter who. I’ll tell you something ironic: when the interrogator
left me tied to the chair for hours [in the interrogation room], I hoped he’d
come back, even if it meant more punishment for things he might force
me to say – just so I wouldn’t be tied to the chair, alone, in a lonely and
frightening place.

Hygienic conditions

Every cell has a squat toilet, with the mattress or mattresses taking up the rest of

the space. Detainees who are not physically fit have trouble using it. For instance,
Rabe’ah Sa’id, a widow and mother of six from Nablus who was 63 at the time,
said that she was unable to use the toilet at all.

The detainees consistently described the cells as reeking and moldy, with a stench
of sewage filling the cell, especially after a detainee relieves himself. In some
cases, the sewage pipe was blocked and the toilet emptied very slowly. In others,
wastewater from the toilet or water from the faucet flooded the cell.
Many detainees stated that the cells were filthy, and were either not cleaned at
all by the facility staff or were not cleaned often enough to ensure basic hygiene.
The staff did not give detainees materials to clean the cells themselves. Several
detainees managed to obtain such materials after repeated insistence.

All the detainees were provided with a thin mattress and a few blankets, which
they also described as moldy and smelly. Not one testimony mentioned that the
dirty blankets were replaced by clean ones; all requests for a change of blankets
were refused.

Most of the detainees were not provided with basic hygienic items, such as toilet
paper, soap, towel, toothbrush, and toothpaste. Some received them only after a
long time in detention, or following repeated demands, or after they complained
to the ICRC.

Forty-two detainees volunteered the information that they were not provided a
change of clothes when necessary, including undergarments. Thirty-two of them
were given a change of clothes only after they had been at the facility for more
than a week, or were not given a change of clothes at all during their detention.8 As
mentioned above, the detainees were arrested in the clothes they were wearing,
and were not allowed to take a change of clothes with them. In many cases, the
first time the detainee was given a change of clothes was after he or she met
with a representative of the ICRC. For example, Qaysar Diq, a resident of a-Diq
village who was 24 when arrested, related that he remained in the same shirt and
pants for 65 days, and that two weeks passed before he was given a change of
undergarments, after repeated pleading.

Marwan Ne’irat was arrested at Allenby Bridge, which connects the West Bank
with Jordan, on his return from Jordan.9 He related:

They let me take a shower three days after I asked for one. They didn’t
give me a change of underwear. Johnson, the interrogator, shouted that I
was disgusting, that I smelled stinky and disgusting, and told them: “Take
him away from me, he stinks.” He insulted me that way a few times. He
pretended that he couldn’t stand being next to me because I stink, and left
the room. I really did smell, but it wasn’t my fault. I was very offended. I
told him, “I’m a person who keeps clean, I shower
every day. You don’t give a change of underwear.
What do you want from me? If you don’t have
underwear to give me, open my suitcase. You know
I was on a trip and came back with a suitcase, so
take out underwear from there.” They refused. It
took them twenty more days to give me a change
of underwear.

A document presented to detainees at intake details
the conditions to which they are entitled and their
“duties” toward the facility authorities. Showering is
listed as a condition to which they are entitled. However, 35 detainees reported
that they were not given the opportunity to shower for part of the time. Even
when they were given access to a shower, some were not given soap and a towel.
In some cases, detainees were provided a small, hard piece of soap and a towel
that disgusted them. Some detainees reported that they were given a very short
time to shower. One was convinced that there were no showers at the facility.

Many of the detainees reported that they developed skin problems during, and
after, their detention at the facility.

Treatment of minors

Eighteen of the detainees were minors (under the age of 18) at the time
they were arrested. Their testimonies indicate that their legal status
as minors had no effect at all on their treatment by the soldiers or the
facility authorities. Like the adults, they were arrested at home, in the
dead of night, and soldiers treated them violently on the way to the
Petah Tikva facility. Their descriptions of the conditions at the facility,
including the physical state of the cells and the denial of basic hygiene,
match the adult testimonies. During interrogation, they, too, were held
for many hours on a chair, with their hands cuffed behind the backrest
and their legs sometimes bound. Like the adults, the minors did not
receive legal advice while they were held at the facility.

Only in one matter did the authorities take care to comply with a
directive regarding minors: separating them from the adult detainees.
As the minors were not spared the manipulation of transferring them
to “informer wings,” the special care given to separating them from
adults is somewhat absurd: in these wings, the informer was placed in
a cell adjacent to that of the minor, and solicited him to confess to the
allegations against him through a small opening between the cells.

Food

Some of the detainees were not fed in an orderly manner, or at all, on the
first day of their detention. Most of the arrests were carried out in the early
hours of the morning, and the first interrogation at the Petah Tikva facility
sometimes lasted until the early hours of the following morning, without a
break for food. Some detainees were given their first meal on the way to the
cell at the end of that interrogation. The denial of food can only in some cases
be explained by missing set mealtimes at the facility; even then, it stands to
reason that the interrogators are capable of arranging for food if they wish.
In other cases, detainees reached the facility in time for a meal, yet were
denied it.

After the initial interrogation, three meals were served each day, the last in the
afternoon. After detainees complained during the visit of officials from the Ministry
of Justice, some detainees reported that they were given bread with something to
spread on it in the evenings.

A clear majority of the detainees (80 of the 121) stated that food was of poor
quality and quantity. One after another described food that was unidentifiable:
rice that was undercooked or that was cooked but had grown stale; hardboiled
eggs that had grown stale and had a blackish or bluish hue; chicken
with feathers still in it; etc. Many detainees said that the cooked food was
served cold. A great many detainees found the food so revolting that they did
not touch it or ate only parts of it. Some said that, throughout their detention
at the facility, they were constantly hungry, and many reported significant
weight loss.

These detainees cannot be accused of fastidiousness. They reported that when
they were transferred to “informer wings” in other detention facilities, they were
given “real food” of good quality. It is clear, therefore, that the Israeli Prison
Service (IPS) is capable of providing decent food, and that the food at the Petah
Tikva facility is poor in comparison to the standard at some, at least, of the other
prisons in Israel.

Since many detainees reported that they returned dishes without touching them,
or having eaten only part of them, it can be assumed that the authorities are well
aware that detainees at the facility do not consume enough to meet the nutritional
standard set by the IPS.

The authorities are certainly also aware of the detainees’ weight loss during their
detention at the Petah Tikva facility. The detainees were weighed at intake, both
at the facility and later, at the prison to which they were transferred. HaMoked
obtained copies of parts of several detainees’ medical files, in which the weight
loss is evident.

Treatment of women

Four women were in the sample of detainees. Their testimonies indicate
that they were held in conditions similar to those described by the men:
narrow, filthy cells, reeking squat toilets, and constant lighting that
induced suffering. They, too, described poor food. Three of the women
were held in total isolation, except when female informers were put in
their cells. Nili Sa’id described the consequences: “The interrogator said
he would make me miss sitting on the interrogation chair. And that‘s
what happened. When I was alone and nobody talked to me, I wanted
them to take me to the chair, because there, at least someone would
talk to me.”

Her mother-in-law, Rabe’ah Sa’id, was held for only one night, in a cell
with another woman.10 They were treated relatively better, as they were
held in the “VIP cell” and interrogated with only one hand cuffed to
the chair, or with their hands completely free. The other three women
were held in the worst of the regular cells, and were denied showers.
Their hands were bound behind the backrest of the chair during
interrogation.

Interrogation of a woman by a man, in an environment that is
predominantly masculine, is threatening even when another woman is
present in the room. One of the detainees reported that interrogators
swore at her using sexually evocative language. Another, whose
husband had been imprisoned for eight years at the time, related that
an interrogator asked her rudely if she was pregnant, and threatened
to start a rumor that she was engaged in an extramarital affair that
had led to pregnancy. Such a threat is not only humiliating and sexually
invasive, but also endangers the detainee’s reputation and, indeed, her
physical safety after returning home. In this way, the interrogator not
only exploited the menacing experience of the interrogation itself, but
also exploited the witness’ underprivileged status and the dangers she
faces as a woman in a conservative society.

The interrogation room

When the detainees were not in cells, they were usually in interrogation rooms.
The time in the interrogation room was sometimes short, and at other times,
lasted most of the day, day after day. Many were held in an interrogation
room for long periods of time without being questioned, and even with no
interrogator present. In certain ways, being held in the interrogation room
continued the deprivation of stimuli and enhanced the deterioration in the
detainee’s physical condition. On the other hand, detainees were relieved by
the transfer out of the cell.

Most of the cells are underground, or were perceived thus by the detainees. The
interrogation rooms, by contrast, are aboveground and have windows, enabling
the detainee to know if it is day or night. Detainees were also able to regain a
measure of orientation by noting the time on the telephone on the interrogator’s
desk or on his watch.

However, the restriction on movement is even greater in the interrogation
room. The entire time in the room, detainees sat on a chair with a metal
frame, a backrest, and a hard plastic seat, which was anchored to the
floor. They sat with their back to the backrest, their hands cuffed behind it.

The cuffs were attached to a chain running through a ring in the backrest.
Sometimes, the detainee’s legs were cuffed to each other, and sometimes
also to the legs of the chair. Detainees rarely had one, or both, hands free.
In several cases, detainees were required to hold their legs stretched back,
behind the front legs of the chair. Often, detainees were bound to the chair,
unable to move, from morning until their return to the cell at night, with
only short breaks. This occurred day after day, and sometimes even for
a whole day and longer. The only breaks from the rigid sitting position
occurred when walking to the bathroom and during the short meal breaks,
which were provided in a very small cell adjacent to the interrogation room.
Several detainees stated that the interrogators prevented them from going
to the bathroom, or delayed their going. In some cases, the detainees were
not given a break to eat, although they were in the interrogation room at
mealtimes.

Consequently, the whole time in the interrogation room, which could last from
fifteen minutes or less to a full day and longer (with short breaks), the detainees
had almost no chance to move. This constitutes sensory deprivation and weakens
the body. Prolonged sitting in the same position prevented the detainees from
sleeping and caused intense physical pain.

Detainees reported that the prolonged binding to the chair made their hands and
legs numb and caused pain in their arms, back, neck, hip, and waist. Several
detainees developed hemorrhoids. Detainees who arrived in the facility with
hemorrhoids reported that their condition deteriorated and that they suffered
anal bleeding. Documentation on hemorrhoids and back pain appears also in the
medical files of some of the detainees that HaMoked obtained.

Nine detainees reported that they felt cold while in the interrogation room and
that the interrogator lowered the temperature on the air-conditioner when
he left the room, leaving the detainee helplessly exposed to the increased
cold.

Cursing and threats

Forty-three of the detainees reported that interrogators addressed them
with swear words and degrading language. Some of the cursing related to
relatives of the detainees and to Islam. Most detainees preferred not to
repeat the precise words, but described cursing of a sexual or humiliating
nature.

Sixty-eight detainees reported that interrogators threatened them. The most
severe examples included threats to hold the detainee in isolation for many months,
sexual threats, threats of beating, and the threat of a “military interrogation,”
which the detainees understood to mean intense physical torture. Two detainees
were threatened with receiving electric shocks. Another recurring threat was to
be held in administrative detention, including threats to extend such a detention
indefinitely.

Use of relatives as a means of pressure

Forty-three detainees related that interrogators exploited their relationships
with their families to pressure them. Interrogators used swear words relating to
family members, especially profanities of a sexual nature regarding women in the
family. Interrogators also threatened to detain relatives or harm them. Several
detainees were shown family members who had been arrested; in a few other
cases, interrogators tried to pressure the detainee by exploiting his concern for
his relatives and the fact that he missed them.12

‘Abd a-Rahim Ratrut, a father of four

from Nablus, worked in Israel as a car
mechanic prior to his detention, at the
age of 40. He stated:

The thing that hurt me most was
the interrogator’s threat to bring my
son ‘Adel, who is seventeen, to the
facility. It tore my heart. He also said
from time to time that he would bring
my wife, and that he was prepared to
bring all my friends from Nablus to
get me to confess.

According to Ratrut, interrogators also threatened to arrange for his mother,
brothers, and sisters to be killed, and for the family house to be demolished.
Baker Sa’id, a father of four from Nablus and an owner of a shoe-production
business, was 43 in 2009. He was under administrative detention and was brought
to the Petah Tikva facility from Ketziot Prison. He was questioned for only two
hours during the entire three weeks that he was held at the facility. During the
short interrogation, he encountered his brother, ‘Ali Sai’d, who was also being
interrogated there. It is highly likely that the objective was to pressure ‘Ali. Their
mother, Rabe’ah Sa’id, 63, and Ali’s wife, Nili Sa’id, 33, were also held there at
the time.13 Rabe’ah Sa’id suffers from low blood pressure. She related:
The female soldier [probably a police officer or jailer] and another policeman put
me in a small cell, with rough walls and ceiling and yellow lighting that bothered
my eyes [... ]. I couldn’t squat to use the toilet because I suffer from pain in my
legs, because of my age [... ]. I sat down on the mattress and fell asleep from
sheer exhaustion, I don’t know for how long. When I woke up, I started knocking
on the cell door to get them to bring a doctor because I felt my blood pressure
was dropping, and I was nauseous and exhausted [... ]. The policeman and the
female soldier came and took me from the cell. I thought they were going to
take me to the doctor’s room, but they took me to an interrogation room.

The female soldier sat me on a chair that was fixed to the floor and tied one
of my hands to it. I told the interrogator that I wouldn’t cooperate and answer
his questions unless he called a doctor to come and examine me. I shouted
and spoke loudly. I noticed that the interrogator didn’t speak a lot. Later, I was
told that he did that so I would continue shouting and asking for treatment,
while they held my sons, Baker and ‘Ali, in the next room. My sons heard me
shouting in pain and asking to see a doctor, and I didn’t even know.

Her grandson, Sa’id Sa’id, an 18-year-old economics student who worked in the
family shoe business, was also being held at the facility and heard her voice. Later,
she was also shown to her detained daughter-in-law, Nili Sa’id. Rabe’ah Sa’id was
held for less than two days and then released – but not before she was taken to
meet one of her sons.
When I got to the interrogation room, I was surprised to see my son, ‘Ali. He
was in a state of collapse and was crying because he was worried about me. He
told me that he was ready to bear anything at all for the sake of my wellbeing.

Several detainees reported that the interrogators extorted a confession from them
in exchange for a telephone conversation with their family. One of these was ‘Abd
al-Hai Hamad, an economics student from Nablus who was 18 at the time. He
gave a confession to the interrogator after he was told that another person had
incriminated him. He was brought before a policeman to sign a written confession
and was given the standard warning that he was entitled to consult with an attorney.
Consequently, he refused to sign before meeting with an attorney. He was put in
isolation for several days, and, at some point, an informer was put in the cell with
him to persuade him to sign the statement. He maintained his refusal to sign.

After four days, they took me back up to the interrogator. I still insisted that I
wouldn’t sign anything without talking to an attorney. He said that I must be
dangerous, otherwise why would I need an attorney. I was scared. I said, “No, I
want to see an attorney so he can give my regards to my family, and not in order
to talk about my case, because I don’t have anything to hide.” He said, “There’s
a solution. If I let you call your family, will you sign a statement?” I said, “Yes.”

He let me talk to my family for two minutes. Then he said my matter was
simple, nothing to it, so there was no reason to delay it. In exchange for the
conversation with my family, he wanted me to sign a statement. I agreed
because I had promised. I signed the confession [... ]. He put me back in the
cell [... ]. I stayed alone for about three days [...].


Binding of hands and legs to a metal sheet

Thaer Abu ‘Abda, from the ‘Askar refugee camp in Nablus, left school
in the ninth grade and began working in a bakery. Later, he opened a
family bakery. At 22, he was arrested. In his affidavit, he related:

I didn’t know what day it was, and whether it was day or night [... ].
The interrogation went on and on. My back started to hurt in the area
by my kidneys and hip, and I also felt pain in the back of my neck and
in my shoulders. My head hurt terribly. My legs, from the knee down,
hurt too. They were quite numb, and I could hardly feel anything. My
whole body hurt [...].
When I was in the cell, I had an unbearable headache. I banged on
the door and called for the jailer. I asked him to take me to the clinic.
He refused and said, “There’s no clinic now. Go to sleep”[... ]. A few
minutes later, he brought me supper. I took the plastic spoon and told
him that if he didn’t take me to a doctor, I would kill myself. I started
cutting my left hand and it bled a bit.

That scared him. He called some other jailers. They came in, cuffed my
hands, and took me to the clinic. A doctor treated the wounds and put a
sort of black plastic bag on my head for a few seconds and then took it
off. I don’t know why. I told him I’d done it because I was sick and they
hadn’t brought me to the clinic, and that anyway, my interrogation was
over, so why shouldn’t they transfer me to prison. I had already signed
the last statement by then.

The doctor didn’t say anything. He just gave me a small, brown
tranquilizer pill. He handed me over to the jailers, who took me back to
the same cell, but now there was a kind of metal sheet, about the size
of a door, inside it. There were rings along the edges of the metal sheet,
and a mattress laid on it. They laid me down on the mattress and tied
my hands and legs to the rings, so I was in a crucified position. They left
me like that until morning.
I yelled all night long. I didn’t get a wink of sleep. I felt like my hands
and legs were being ripped off me, and that my back was about to
break. I yelled all night, and they pretended they didn’t hear me.
The next day, they took me to Megiddo [Prison].

Abu ‘Abda’s testimony is supported by his medical file. According to
the file, on 22 March 2009, he was brought to the clinic complaining of
a headache, dizziness, and lower-back pain, and was given one tablet
of Optalgin (a pain-killer). The next day, he was brought to the clinic
and the physician reported a complaint of “general pressure”, and gave
him Calmanervin (a sedative). A day later, he arrived at the clinic with
wounds that the physician noted he had inflicted on himself. The file also
includes a directive given by the head of the facility to bind Abu ‘Abda’s
hands and legs to a bed for twenty-four hours – an unusual action,
which appeared in only one other testimony.

Sleep deprivation

Many detainees reported severe sleep deprivation, due to the means described
above or to being held for long periods in an interrogation room, with very short
breaks back in the cell. Thirteen detainees stated they had been denied sleep
for more than 24 hours. Detainees reported that the sleep deprivation resulted
in trembling, eye pains, headaches, and a drugged feeling, and increased their
disorientation and distress.

As previously described, a great many detainees were arrested at home, in the
early hours of the morning. The period of detention therefore began with a sleep
deficit, as they could not complete the night’s sleep. Until late morning, they were
handcuffed, often in a way that caused excruciating pain;

abused by soldiers; and all were transferred between vehicles and temporary
holding places, and underwent searches, medical checks, and so forth. Most were
interrogated shortly after they finally arrived at the Petah Tikva facility, some until
late at night, without a moment’s sleep.
For example, a student from Nablus, who was 24 when arrested and wishes
to remain anonymous, reported that he was arrested at his home at 3:00

A.M. and taken to the Petah Tikva facility. When he was taken into the
interrogation room, he caught a glimpse of the jailer’s watch and saw that
it was 6:30 a.m. He was interrogated the whole day, with no breaks, while
bound to the chair, and could not sleep. When he was finally taken to a cell,
he asked the time, and the jailer said it was 1:30 a.m. In the cell, he ate
for the first time since he was arrested. The interrogation started again at
7:30 A.M.
Fawzi Q’aqurah, an education student from Tul Karm who was 22 when arrested,
stated that he was arrested at 2 A.M. and taken to the facility. On arrival, a staff
member told him that authorization had been given to deprive him of sleep for 80
hours. He estimates that he slept a total of some three hours during the two and
a half days following his arrest.

Nabil ‘Antar, a father of three from Nablus and an aluminum shop owner, was 34
when arrested. At the beginning of his detention at the Petah Tikva facility, he
underwent an especially long interrogation, during which he was bound to the
chair from beginning to end, unable to sleep or move.

Sometimes, I couldn’t stay awake and nodded off in the chair. The interrogator
wouldn’t let me. He shouted and woke me up. He yelled, “Look me in the eye,
don’t take your eyes off me.” He didn’t let me stretch my legs. He shouted
every time I changed position. Every new interrogator used the same method,
and made sure I didn’t sleep. […].

The interrogator shook me to wake me up, and shouted. It was like I was
hearing his voice from far away. I didn’t really get what he was saying because
I was exhausted, wiped out.

I had a headache and my eyes and neck hurt. The back of my neck really
hurt, and so did my knees and lower back. My arms hurt from my elbows to
my wrists. The palms of my hands really hurt. They felt numb and almost
paralyzed most of the time.

After the first interrogation, the detainees were still not allowed to sleep enough.
The constant artificial lighting in the cell made it hard for them to fall asleep, and
made the sleep itself poor. This was exacerbated by the cold, by the extremely thin
mattress, by the stench, by noise made by other detainees, and by jailers’ random
banging on the door, according to several detainees. Those whom soldiers beat
especially severely during the arrest, or who suffered intense back pain because
of the long hours of sitting during interrogation, said they had difficulty sleeping
also because of the pain.

A number of detainees described several days in a row of especially intense
interrogation, in which they were kept in the interrogation room almost all the
time. They were taken for interrogation in the morning and returned to their
cells in the early hours of the next morning, only to be awakened for breakfast
and more interrogation. Time in the interrogation room was devoted mostly
to interrogation, including shouts and threats, by one or more interrogators.
However, some detainees recall situations in which the interrogators left the
room, leaving the detainee bound to the chair, with a jailer remaining to prevent
him from falling asleep.

Physical violence

In the 1990s, the use of direct physical violence against detainees was common
ISA interrogation practice. One method formally allowed was “shaking,” which
even caused the death of a detainee.15 This practice, among others, was prohibited
by Israel’s High Court of Justice in 1999.

B'Tselem’s and HaMoked’s 2007 report Absolute Prohibition documented six
methods of direct physical violence used in ISA interrogations: dry beatings
(including kicking); maximum tightening of handcuffs; sudden pulling forward
of the body; sharp twisting of the head to the side or backward; forced
crouching in the “frog” position; and forced bending backwards (the “banana”
position).16

The present research reveals that at least three of these methods are still in use:
dry beatings, sharp twisting of the head sideways or backwards, and sudden
pulling of the body. Some of the testimonies on violent treatment do not precisely
match one of these methods, but are similar in style. According to the 2007 report,
the three other methods were used only against “senior detainees,” i.e., persons
who were detained in circumstances indicating that the authorities deemed their
interrogation especially important or urgent. These methods were not reported in
the present research.

Eleven detainees reported that interrogators used direct physical violence against
them. For example, ‘Adel Dweikat, a student of Islam from Nablus who was 25
when arrested, related:
On the evening of Monday, 19 January 2009, I was bound to a chair in the
interrogation room with an interrogator who identified himself as “Doron.” He
got up and walked over to me, and with one hand, pushed my chin so my head
turned backward. With his other hand, he punched me in the chest.

Muhammad Nazal, a computer-software student from Qalqilya who was 20 when
arrested, described another way of head pushing:
[The interrogator who called himself] Akiva grabbed my face with his hand
and pressed hard, turning my head.

‘Ali Shtiyeh related another kind of physical violence.17

The interrogation lasted from ten in the morning, on 14 February 2009, to four
in the morning the next day. There were four interrogators in the room. They
slapped me and spit in my face. One of them sat on the table opposite me, put
his foot on my chest, and pushed me with his leg, while I was cuffed.

The effect of these violent acts is twofold: not only are they harmful in themselves,
but they also lend credence to threats of other forms of violence, including threats
of a “military interrogation,” increasing the detainee’s anxiety.
Use of informers and other interrogation methods

In several cases, interrogators confronted two detainees suspected of the same
act. The confrontation was carried out in an interrogation room, or, in a more
sophisticated way, by using two adjacent cells designated for this purpose,
enabling the detainees to talk with each other through a pipe between them.
Another method, which was repeatedly mentioned in testimonies, was polygraph
testing (as it was presented to the detainees).

Planting informers in the cell to get detainees to talk was an integral part of
the authorities’ treatment of most detainees. Unlike the methods described in
previous chapters, this measure is not forbidden, though it may be illegitimate
in certain circumstances, such as when the informer pretends to be an
attorney.

In some cases, informers were used inside the Petah Tikva facility. Many detainees
reported that, part of the time, they were held in a cell with another person,
who asked them questions relating to the subject on which they were being
interrogated, bothered them in a way that prevented them from sleeping, or acted
in an obscene manner (for example, when using the toilet), which increased their
distress. A few of the detainees mentioned that they were held with a person
resembling Marwan Barghouti, who professed to be his brother and offered to
help them. The same informer, apparently, told different detainees that he was an
attorney, or that he represented the Palestinian Prisoner’s Club, an organization
that provides legal aid to detainees.

Many detainees said that persons who appeared to be fellow detainees “prepared”
them for being transferred to prison, based on their alleged experience. They
told the detainees that once in prison, they would be contacted by a prisoner
appointed by Palestinian organizations as a “security coordinator,” and that they
must tell him everything about their actions.

Many detainees were indeed transferred, temporarily, to other facilities, being told
that their interrogation had ended and they were being transferred to a regular
prison. They were placed in “informer wings,” in cells with informers who tried
to get them to provide information. This mostly occurred after the interrogation
had reached a dead-end – the detainee had admitted certain things (or nothing)
and provided no further information. A considerable number of detainees were
transferred to Wing 12 in Megiddo Prison, and the description that follows is based
principally on their testimonies. The few detainees who were transferred to “informer
wings” at Kishon Prison, the Russian Compound, Ashkelon Prison, and a prison in
Beersheva described slightly different, but essentially similar proceedings.

According to the testimonies, upon arrival at the new prison the detainee was taken
to a wing holding a large number of persons, whom he assumed were prisoners.
Conditions in the wing were described as completely different from the deprivation
at Petah Tikva: excellent food, a yard that the detainees are allowed to use, TVs, free

access to showers, and so forth. The “prisoners” knew how to impress the detainees
and gain their trust: according to detainees, they came across as strictly observant
Muslims, making sure, for instance, to hold all required prayers (and sometimes
more). Other detainees related that they played intellectual games and sports.
They spoke of their impressive past in the Palestinian resistance movement.

After a period of adjustment to the prison, the detainee was approached by a
person who identified himself as a “security coordinator” on behalf of Palestinian
organizations, and demanded information about the detainee’s activity in the
framework of resistance to Israel. The pretext given was that the information was
needed so that the Palestinian leadership within the prison could determine which
wing the detainee would be moved to, send messages to the detainee’s associates
who were not in prison, and remove suspicion that the detainee was a collaborator.

Many detainees said that they were also promised to be moved to a wing with
relatives, to make contact with their families, and to receive a good lawyer. In some
cases, a letter addressed to the detainee was “smuggled” into the wing, seemingly
from one of the Palestinian organizations, ordering him to cooperate with the security
coordinator. While many of the detainees said they suspected that persons held in the
cell with them in Petah Tikva were collaborators, most fell for the trap once they were
in the “informer wings.” After he had finished relaying his incriminating information
to the informers, or when he made it clear that he suspected them, the detainee was
taken from the cell under various pretexts and returned to the Petah Tikva facility.
Naturally, the ISA does not use this maneuver on experienced detainees, who have
been interrogated and imprisoned in the past.

End of detention in the Petah Tikva facility

After their transfer back to the Petah Tikva facility, the detainees returned to the
previous conditions of alternating between the cell and the interrogation room.
Generally, as time passed, they were taken less frequently to the interrogation
room, and the interrogations were shorter. At some point, the interrogations
stopped altogether, and detainees were held only in their cell for quite a prolonged
period, with rare exits to go to court and a daily visit to the shower room (if the
cell did not have one). A small number of detainees were kept in isolation at this
stage, without the relative relief of being taken to the interrogation room.

Mahmud Za’ul, a construction worker in Israel from the village of Husan, who was 22
when arrested, relates that he was held in isolation for 20 days after his last interrogation.

Many detainees were held in this way even after an indictment had been filed against
them and their detention extended until the end of the criminal proceedings.

For example, Ibrahim Shalaldeh, a father of four and a construction worker from
the village of Sa’ir, who was 31 when arrested, stated:

The policeman wrote down my confession [... ]. The next day, my detention
was extended for another twelve days in Petah Tikva. From that day on, I
wasn’t interrogated at all, and sat alone in the cell. Then, my detention was
extended for another eight days there. I was in Petah Tikva for about sixty
five days, and in forty to forty-five of them I wasn’t interrogated. The last five
days were the only time that I was with other people. I requested a meeting
to ask why they were still holding me, but the interrogator refused.

The practice of holding detainees in cells for lengthy periods after their interrogation
ends was also criticized in the Feuchtwanger report of the visit to the facility:

The principal problem that arose in conversations with the detainees related to the
length of their detention in the facility, and to uncertainty whether they would continue
to be held there or would be transferred to IPS facilities [... ]. The case of one detainee

Court proceedings and prevention of meetings with attorneys
and representatives of organizations

As a rule, every detainee in Israel has the right to meet immediately with an attorney.
However, in security-related offenses, the authorities have the power to prevent
such meetings. The ISA uses this exceptional power routinely. Some of the detainees
related that the interrogator told them explicitly that they were denied a meeting
with an attorney, but they were not told for how long. At any rate, orders preventing
meetings with attorneys are repeatedly extended. Our research shows that, in the
typical case, the detainee does not receive legal advice – whether due to an order
preventing meeting with a lawyer, to the detainee’s family not retaining a lawyer, or
because none of the volunteer organizations engaged in defending detainees sent
a lawyer. During extensions of the detention period, held at court, the detainee is
usually represented by counsel, most often an attorney from one of the Palestinians
organizations that provides legal aid to detainees. It is also possible that detainees
are represented without being aware of it, in those cases where they are prevented
from meeting the attorney and the situation is not explained to them. In the cases in
which detainees stated that they had been represented, the representation mostly
focused on the extension of detention, and did not include a meaningful meeting with
the lawyer on the detainee's rights in interrogation and detention. Many detainees
did not understand the detention proceedings or their legal status. Several detainees
stated that the interrogator told them in advance for how many days their detention
would be extended, and that this was always correct.

[The interrogator who went by the name of] Doron said I was prevented
from meeting a lawyer, but didn’t say for how long [... ]. I didn’t understand
anything in court. They only explained to me at the end that my detention
had been extended. I never spoke with the judge, and I didn’t complain about
the isolation, or that they were holding me without interrogating me, because
I didn’t know I was allowed to speak in court at all. I knew to enter, stand
and sit, and that they extended my detention. The only thing I said was my
name.

Exploitation of the detainee’s medical condition

“A”, from Nablus, was 19 when he was arrested. He suffers from a
mental disorder, for which he regularly takes psychiatric medication.
When soldiers came to arrest him, he was not at home. He later turned
himself in to the army, accompanied by his father. His father gave his
son’s medication and a medical document indicating his condition to a
person introduced to him as a “captain” (apparently, an ISA agent). The
father was told that his son would be released within ten minutes or so.

In fact, “A” was held for almost six months, and, at first, the authorities

did not inform his family of his whereabouts. In the Petah Tikva facility,
he was not given his medication and was held in a standard cell. In the
interrogation room, in addition to his hands being tied to the backrest of
the chair, his legs were bound to each other and to the legs of the chair.
After about one day in the facility, he had an attack. He described it:

I started to shout. I thought there were monsters in the cell. During an
attack, I turn into a different person. I become violent and go wild. On
the outside, when I had an attack, I would hit and break things. I usually
didn’t remember what I’d done. In the cell, I really went wild and banged
on the door and the walls. I screamed that I wanted cigarettes.

Rather than taking “A” to a clinic and having him treated by medical staff,

he was taken to an interrogator, who gave him coffee and cake, and also
medication. During the rest of his detention, the medication was given
by the interrogator, and not by the medical staff. The interrogator also
gave him cigarettes, to which the detainee was addicted. This unusual
treatment, in comparison with other detainees, raises the suspicion that
his condition was exploited to make him dependent on the interrogator.
Later in his detention, he was transferred to the detention facility at the
 Russian Compound in Jerusalem. He was held in a cell with informers
who harassed him, and he had another attack.