37/42 Human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem -Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

GE.18-02676(E)



Human Rights Council Thirty-seventh session

26 February–23 March 2018

Agenda items 2 and 7

Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner

for Human Rights and reports of the Office

of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General

Human rights situation in Palestine and other

occupied Arab territories

Human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem

Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights*

Summary

The present report is submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 34/30

on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East

Jerusalem. It focuses on the practice of arbitrary detention by Israeli and Palestinian

authorities. It covers the period from 1 November 2016 to 31 October 2017.

* The present report was submitted after the deadline in order to reflect recent developments.

United Nations A/HRC/37/42

I. Introduction

1. The present report is submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 34/30,

in which the Council requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

to report on the implementation of that resolution, with a particular focus on the factors

perpetuating the arbitrary detention of Palestinian prisoners and detainees in Israeli jails, in

consultation with the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. The High Commissioner also

examines the practice of arbitrary detention by the Palestinian authorities in the West Bank

and Gaza. The report is aimed at providing an accurate picture of the various forms of

arbitrary deprivation of liberty to which Palestinians are exposed in the Occupied

Palestinian Territory. In his recommendations, the High Commissioner encourages all duty

bearers to comply with related obligations under international law.

2. The report covers the period from 1 November 2016 to 31 October 2017. It is

mainly based on cases monitored by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner

for Human Rights (OHCHR), as well as on information obtained by other United Nations

entities operating in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and by Israeli and Palestinian non-

governmental organizations (NGOs). As per Human Rights Council resolution 34/30, the

report was prepared in consultation with the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

3. While the present report focuses on arbitrary detention, other reports of the

Secretary-General and of the High Commissioner provide a more comprehensive analysis

of the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including as regards

conditions of detention.1

II. Legal background

4. International humanitarian law and international human rights law apply in the

Occupied Palestinian Territory, namely in Gaza and the West Bank, including East

Jerusalem. The Occupied Palestinian Territory is a territory under belligerent occupation, to

which the provisions governing occupation notably apply.2 The jurisdiction and effective

control exercised by Israel as the occupying Power are the basis for its human rights

obligations within the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Those obligations are in line with the

obligation of Israel, under the law of occupation, to protect the Palestinian population of the

Occupied Palestinian Territory. Concurrently, the State of Palestine is bound by its human

rights obligations regarding the entirety of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The

authorities in Gaza also bear human rights obligations given their exercise of government-

like functions and territorial control.3

5. Arbitrary detention is prohibited by international human rights law and humanitarian

law. Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees the

right to liberty and security of person and provides that no one shall be subjected to

arbitrary arrest or detention.4 Considered as arbitrary are deprivations of liberty that are

contrary to international law provisions, mostly those relating to the right to a fair trial or

other procedural guarantees, 5 as also provided by the law of occupation. 6 Unlawful

confinement and wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights to a fair and regular trial

1 See A/HRC/34/38, A/HRC/37/38 and A/HRC/37/43.

2 As provided by the 1907 Hague Regulations, the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of

Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention) and customary international law; see

A/HRC/34/38, para. 10.

3 See A/HRC/34/38, paras. 3–11, for more details on the applicable legal framework.

4 See also Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 9.

5 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, arts. 9 and 14; see also Human Rights

Committee general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person; and the Body of

Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment

(A/RES/43/173).

6 Fourth Geneva Convention, arts. 66–75.

amount to grave breaches of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian

Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention), hence to war crimes.7 In addition,

protected persons shall only be detained only in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the

non-respect of this rule violates the prohibition of forcible transfer; another grave breach of

the Fourth Geneva Convention and a war crime. 8

III. Arbitrary detention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

A. Introduction

6. The Working Group has identified five legal categories relating to arbitrary

detention: (a) when there is no legal basis for the deprivation of liberty (category 1), (b)

when the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of fundamental freedoms, (c) when

the violations of norms relating to the right to a fair trial are of such gravity as to give the

deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character, (d) when migrants are subjected to prolonged

administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or

remedy, and (e) when the deprivation of liberty reflects discrimination, notably based on

birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language, religion and political or other opinion.9

7. Based on those categories, and in view of the cases monitored by OHCHR during

the reporting period, the present report is divided into two parts describing two sets of

factors perpetuating arbitrary detention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In the first

part, the High Commissioner examines cases of detention without apparent or legitimate

grounds, or where the right to a fair trial is not guaranteed (categories 1 and 3). In the

second part, the High Commissioner examines cases where individuals have been detained

for exercising their fundamental freedoms (category 2).

8. Although of particular relevance to the present context, arbitrary detention on

discriminatory grounds (category 5) is not addressed separately in this report, as it is likely

to apply to most cases described therein. The Working Group has notably invoked

detention on discriminatory grounds in its conclusions pertaining to several cases of

detention of Palestinians by Israel. 10 The Secretary-General has also noted how the

application of two different legal systems in the same territory, on the sole basis of

nationality or origin, is inherently discriminatory and undermines the right to a fair trial.11

B. Detention without grounds or fair trial guarantees

9. This section focuses on cases of detention that are likely to be arbitrary due to the

absence of any legal basis justifying the detention, or where there are no prospects for a fair

trial. Given the frequent invocation of vague security grounds and the use of secret

evidence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, it is often impossible to determine whether

the detention is based on a legitimate ground. The practice of administrative detention is

also addressed in this section.

1. Detention without legitimate grounds or legal basis

10. To be in conformity with international human rights law, any deprivation of liberty

must have a legal basis. Where no reasonable ground is invoked, the detention is considered

as arbitrary. Arbitrary detention is practised by Israel, the State of Palestine and the

authorities in Gaza.

7 Ibid., art. 147; Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, art. 8 (2) (a) (vi).

8 Fourth Geneva Convention, arts. 49 (1), 76 and 147; Rome Statute, art. 8 (2) (a) (vii).

9 Methods of work of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (A/HRC/36/38).

10 See opinions No. 31/2017, No. 15/2016 and No. 13/2016.

11 See A/HRC/34/38, para. 40.

11. During the reporting period, OHCHR monitored cases where residents of Gaza

appear to have been arrested and detained by the Israeli authorities without legal basis. The

arrest of fishermen off the coast of Gaza remains of particular concern. 12 During the

reporting period, 42 fishermen, including 3 children, were reportedly arrested by the Israeli

navy (apparently within the Israeli-authorized fishing zone). The circumstances of the

arrests, the focus of the interrogations and the fact that most of the fishermen were

eventually released without charge strongly suggest that such arrests have no legal basis

and are used to collect information about Palestinian groups in Gaza, as exemplified in the

cases described below.

12. On 4 December 2016, the Israeli navy arrested two fishermen at sea, reportedly

posing no threat to the Israeli navy at the time. One of the men remained in Israeli detention

without being officially charged for more than two weeks, while his brother was

immediately released. The former was reportedly accused of affiliation to an armed group

and subjected to ill-treatment during his interrogation. He had access to legal counsel only

10 days after his arrest. The court ordered his release on 22 December 2016, without any

charge. Once back in Gaza, he was summoned by the internal security agency, detained for

three days and interrogated regarding his arrest and detention by the Israeli authorities.

13. OHCHR monitored the arrest of nine other fishermen between 21 February and 18

September 2017. All nine were arrested at sea by members of the Israeli navy, who opened

fire on them and forced them to undress and jump into the water after intercepting their

boats, which were eventually confiscated. Two fishermen sustained injuries during their

arrest. 13 The fishermen were all taken to Ashdod before being transferred to Beit

Hanoun/Erez crossing point, where the majority reported being interrogated, notably about

Hamas and other groups, including armed groups. None was indicted and all were released

on the same day. They all reported that, upon return to Gaza, they were detained and

interrogated by the internal security agency for periods varying from a few hours to two

days.

14. Most fishermen summoned and detained by the internal security agency following

arrest by the Israeli navy reported having been ill-treated. OHCHR monitored another case

of possible arbitrary detention for interrogation by the internal security agency during the

reporting period, based on political affiliation (see para. 59 below).

15. In the West Bank, detention without legal basis has been reported in cases where

Palestinian security forces refused — in violation of the Basic Law for the Palestinian

Interim Self-Government Authority — to implement court orders to release detainees.14

Such orders are often bypassed by rearresting a person on new charges, usually invoking

gubernatorial powers under Jordanian law (see para. 25 below). This practice continues to

be of concern, as confirmed by the Independent Commission for Human Rights, which

reported having received 75 complaints relating to cases of continued detention by the

Palestinian authorities despite the issuance of release orders during the reporting period.15

16. A troubling case of continued detention notwithstanding release orders is the

detention, since 25 May 2017, of Shadi Nammoura, from Hebron. He was first detained by

the General Intelligence Service in Hebron and then later in Jericho, on the order of the

Governor of Nablus. The court ordered his release three times (on 30 May, 13 June and 3

August 2017) and each time, his continued detention — in conditions that gave cause for

concern — was requested by the Governor, on the third occasion based on the need to

protect the detainee from the Israeli Security Forces. Mr. Nammoura was released on 7

December 2017 and arrested by the Israeli Security Forces 11 days later. The practice of

detaining individuals for their own protection, against their will, remains a concern,16 as

also shown by the case of Abuhlayyel Ammar Tawfiq, who was eventually released on 6

February 2017. He had been detained by the Preventive Security Services in Ramallah

12 See A/HRC/34/36, para. 19; and A/71/364, para. 37.

13 See A/HRC/37/38.

14 See A/HRC/19/20, para. 42.

15 Independent Commission for Human Rights, monthly reports. Available from http://ichr.ps/en/1/5.

16 See A/HRC/31/40, para. 59; and A/HRC/28/80, para. 47.

since 6 November 2015 to protect him from the Israeli Security Forces after a friend of his

reportedly committed an attack against Israelis in the West Bank. Mr. Tawfiq requested to

be released on his own responsibility and, along with relatives, signed a waiver in July

2016. He was held against his will for a total of 15 months. Two months after being

released by the Preventive Security Service, Mr. Tawfiq was arrested by the Israeli Security

Forces.

2. Unlawful administrative detention practices

17. Administrative detention refers to the deprivation of liberty outside the context of

criminal proceedings. It is usually based on an order issued by State executive authorities,

generally without charges, indictment or trial before a criminal court. While not prohibited

as such under international law, administrative detention is permitted only in exceptional

circumstances and subject to stringent safeguards to prevent arbitrariness.17 The Human

Rights Committee considers that administrative detention presents severe risks of arbitrary

deprivation of liberty.18 Indeed, the practice may undermine most fundamental fair trial

guarantees. Moreover, the uncertainty that such measures imply for the detainee in the

absence of any charges, known evidence or trial, as well as of any foreseeable detention

period, may amount to ill-treatment. Acknowledging the exceptional character of such

measures, the law of occupation provides that a civilian may only be detained for

imperative reasons of security.19 The practice of administrative detention by both the Israeli

and the Palestinian authorities is a major factor perpetuating arbitrary detention in the

Occupied Palestinian Territory.20

Use of administrative detention by Israel

18. Concerns have repeatedly been voiced about the Israeli policy of administrative

detention. 21 In 1998, the Human Rights Committee called on Israel to ensure that

administrative detention be brought within the strict requirements of the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.22 With no improvement evident by 2010, it called

on Israel to refrain from using administrative detention, particularly for children.23 In 2014,

the Committee called on Israel to end the practice of administrative detention. 24 The

Committee against Torture has also repeatedly concluded that the use by Israel of

administrative detention, particularly for inordinately lengthy periods, violates the

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment,25 and called upon Israel to urgently end this practice.26

19. On 31 October 2017, Israel was reportedly holding 453 Palestinians in

administrative detention, including at least 18 individuals detained on the basis of orders

that were extended by 18 to 24 months.27

17 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 9; and Fourth Geneva Convention, art. 78.

18 Human Rights Committee general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, para. 15.

19 Fourth Geneva Convention, art. 78; see also the International Committee of the Red Cross

commentary thereto, p. 367.

20 Provisions of article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the right to a

fair trial are applicable where sanctions, because of their purpose, character or severity, must be

regarded as penal, even if, under national law, the detention is qualified as administrative (opinion No.

31/2017, para. 30).

21 See A/HRC/34/38, paras. 53 and 56; A/HRC/34/36, paras. 22–24; A/71/355, para. 20; A/71/364,

paras. 34–35; A/HRC/31/40, paras. 37–43; A/HRC/31/43, paras. 42–43; A/69/347, paras. 28–29;

A/HRC/28/45, paras. 49–50; and A/HRC/28/80, paras. 32–33. See also the position of Israel on its

practice of administrative detention. Available from www.law.idf.il/602-5089-en/Patzar.aspx.

22 See CCPR/C/79/Add.93, para. 21.

23 See CCPR/C/ISR/CO/3, para. 7 (b).

24 See CCPR/C/ISR/CO/4, para. 10 (b).

25 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, art. 16.

26 See CAT/C/ISR/CO/4, para. 17; and CAT/C/ISR/CO/5, paras. 22–23.

27 See www.hamoked.org/Prisoners.aspx; see also www.btselem.org/administrative_detention/statistics;

and joint reporting by Palestinian Prisoners Commission, Addameer Prisoners Support and Human

Rights Association, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights and Palestinian Prisoners Club.

20. The main legal basis for administrative detention by Israel in the Occupied

Palestinian Territory is Military Order 1651,28 which empowers military commanders to

detain a person for a period of time not exceeding six months, if they have reasonable

grounds to believe that detention is required for reasons related to regional or public

security.29 Detention orders may be extended for additional periods of up to six months,

with no legal limit on the number of renewals, hence allowing for the indefinite detention

of a person.30 The legal basis for administrative detention can be found in two other Israeli

laws: the Emergency Powers (Detention) Law of 197931 and the Incarceration of Unlawful

Combatants Law of 2002.32 While the former is the only one pertaining to East Jerusalem,

the latter is generally used to detain Palestinians from Gaza. Both laws grant broad

discretionary power to issue detention orders that can be indefinitely renewed.

21. These laws do not conform with international human rights law. Detention should

not last longer than absolutely necessary and the overall length of possible detention should

be limited. 33 International human rights law also provides that grounds for arrest or

detention must be prescribed by law and should be defined with sufficient precision to

avoid overly broad or arbitrary interpretation or application.34 The vague and undefined

reasons provided by Israeli laws to justify administrative detention effectively allow the

Israeli authorities to use administrative detention as an alternative to criminal proceedings,

mainly when there is not sufficient evidence to charge an individual, or when the authorities

do not reveal the available evidence.35

22. Administrative detention is also used to keep individuals incarcerated following the

completion of their sentence, as exemplified by the case of Bilal Kayed. Convicted in

March 2003, he was completing a prison sentence of 14 and a half years when a 6-month

administrative detention order was issued against him, 6 days before his expected release

on 7 June 2016, on the ground that his membership of the Popular Front for the Liberation

of Palestine would endanger security. He was eventually released on 13 December 2016,

after a 71-day hunger strike.36 As described in previous reports, numerous detainees have

resorted to hunger strikes to protest against and raise attention regarding their indeterminate

detention without formal charges.37

23. Although Israeli legislation provides for judicial review and guarantees the right to

legal counsel, the opportunity to challenge detention is usually undermined by the fact that,

in the vast majority of cases, evidence remains classified on grounds of State security.38

Hence, neither the detainee nor the lawyer is informed of the allegations and detention

grounds, undermining any effective right to challenge the detention. Human rights law

prescribes that the detainee should at least have access to the essence of the evidence on

which decisions are taken.39 The High Commissioner remains deeply concerned by the

policy of administrative detention by Israel on vague or undisclosed security grounds, in

lengthy processes where individuals are deprived of core due process guarantees. In

28 See Military Order regarding Security Provisions [Consolidated Version] (Judea and Samaria) (No.

1651). Available from http://nolegalfrontiers.org/en/military-orders/mil01/67-security-provisions-

chapter9-271-315 (English translation).

29 Ibid., sect. 285 (A).

30 Ibid., sect. 285 (B).

31 See www.btselem.org/sites/default/files/1979_emergency_powers_law_detention_0.pdf.

32 See www.hamoked.org/files/2011/240_eng.pdf.

33 See Human Rights Committee general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 15.

34 Ibid., para. 22.

35 See www.btselem.org/administrative_detention/occupied_territories.

36 See A/HRC/34/36, para. 23.

37 See A/HRC/34/38, para. 53; A/71/364, para. 35; and A/69/347, para. 28.

38 See Military Order regarding Security Provisions [Consolidated Version] (Judea and Samaria) (No.

1651). Available from http://nolegalfrontiers.org/en/military-orders/mil01/67-security-provisions-

chapter9-271-315 (English translation), sects. 290–291; see also Emergency Powers (Detention) Law

of 1979, arts. 6 and 8. Available from

www.btselem.org/sites/default/files/1979_emergency_powers_law_detention_0.pdf.

39 See Human Rights Committee general comment No. 35, para. 15.

addition, the detention of Palestinians in Israel is in violation of the prohibition of forcible

transfer of protected persons outside the Occupied Palestinian Territory.40

Authority of Palestinian governors to order detention in the West Bank

24. The Secretary-General and the High Commissioner have previously expressed

concerns about administrative detention practices by the Palestinian authorities that amount

to arbitrary detention.41 While there is no record of the total number of administrative

detainees in the West Bank, the Independent Commission for Human Rights recorded 97

cases of administrative detention during the reporting period.

25. According to Palestinian law, individuals cannot be deprived of their liberty, except

on the basis of an order issued by a competent judicial body, as provided by the law.42

However, reports of arrests and detentions upon the order of a provincial governor are of

continuous concern.43 Indeed, according to the Jordanian Prevention of Crimes Act of 1954,

governors have the authority to arrest and detain individuals on the very general basis of

maintaining public law and order. 44 As shown by cases monitored by OHCHR, the

authorities have no apparent intention to charge or prosecute those arrested on such basis

and may detain them for up to six months without the detention being reviewed by a judge

or any other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power.45

26. The routine practice of detention on a governor’s authority is inconsistent with

international law46 and raises concerns of arbitrary detention, not least as governors have

apparently been using such power mainly to detain political opponents.47

3. Violations of due process guarantees in criminal proceedings

27. Another factor perpetuating arbitrary detention is the violation of the right to a fair

trial in criminal proceedings, when it is of such gravity as to give an arbitrary character to

the deprivation of liberty. Through trial monitoring, OHCHR has identified several

concerns about violations of fair trial rights in the Israeli justice system concerning

Palestinians, as illustrated by the case of Mohammad el Halabi.

28. As previously reported,48 the Head of the Gaza World Vision office, Mohammad el

Halabi, was arrested at Beit Hanoun/Erez crossing point on 15 June 2016 on allegations of

diverting humanitarian funds to support armed groups in Gaza. On 3 July 2016, a United

Nations Development Programme contractor was also arrested at Beit Hanoun/Erez

crossing point on similar grounds. Mr. El Halabi was denied access to a lawyer for almost a

month while the United Nations Development Programme contractor’s access to a lawyer

was reportedly also delayed. Indeed, Israeli law allows investigation authorities to deny an

individual arrested on suspicion of committing a security offence the right to meet with a

lawyer for up to 21 days.49 This provision is applicable to any investigation of security

offences, as broadly defined in the law.

29. Delayed access to a lawyer often suggests that the detainee has been held

incommunicado. In addition, Israeli law allows for detainees accused of a security offence

to be banned from attending hearings.50 Hence, they may be held incommunicado for weeks

40 Fourth Geneva Convention, art. 49.

41 See A/HRC/34/38, para. 54; A/HRC/34/36, paras. 55–58 and 70–74; A/HRC/31/44, para. 78; and

A/HRC/31/40, paras. 56–58 and 69–70.

42 See Amended Basic Law of 2003, art. 11; and Penal Procedures Law of 2001, art. 29.

43 See A/HRC/34/38, para. 54; A/HRC/34/36, para. 58; and A/HRC/31/40, paras. 56–58.

44 Prevention of Crimes Act of 1954, art. 4; Administrative Divisions Regulation No. 1 of 1966.

45 See A/HRC/34/36, para. 58.

46 In 2014, a petition was submitted to the Palestinian High Court, challenging the constitutionality of

the Jordanian law in question, and was reportedly dismissed on procedural grounds.

47 See A/HRC/34/36, para. 58.

48 Ibid., para. 21.

49 Criminal Procedure Law (Powers of Enforcement — Arrest), 1996, art. 35 (b).

50 Decisions made in ex parte hearings can also be concealed (Counter-Terrorism Law of 2016, arts. 48–

51).

without seeing a judge, lawyer or family member and at the mercy of interrogators. Not

only can incommunicado detention in itself amount to torture51 but it also increases the risk

of torture and ill-treatment due to isolation.52

30. During his interrogation, Mr. El Halabi was allegedly exposed to ill-treatment that

may amount to torture. He was also reportedly exposed to threats by undercover informers

acting as inmates and inducing detainees to confess. Acquisition of evidence under pressure

or duress is of concern, as it notably undermines the fairness of the trial. OHCHR further

observed how some detainees from Gaza testifying as witnesses in Mr. El Halabi’s trial

asserted that they had at some point confessed to allegations in similar circumstances.

Although Israeli law provides for the audio and video recording of interrogations of

detainees suspected of serious offences, the police and security agencies have been

exempted from this requirement as regards Palestinians suspected of security offences since

2002, an exemption made permanent in 2017. The exemption has removed a key safeguard

against the use of torture and ill-treatment to obtain confessions. According to international

human rights law, any information obtained as a result of torture or other cruel, inhuman or

degrading treatment shall not be invoked as evidence in proceedings.53

31. Mr. El Halabi’s first hearing took place on 30 August 2016. The trial initially took

place behind closed doors and the case was initially subject to a gagging order that also

precluded the lawyer from sharing any information. The ongoing trial is public, except for

the cross-examination of certain witnesses for alleged security reasons. In addition, an

important part of the evidence is being kept secret by the prosecution. The use of privileged

evidence, to which not even the detainee’s lawyer has access, is of great concern in trials

involving Palestinians. In view of the right of defence under international law, the detaining

authority should provide all relevant information to the judge and the defence, including

exculpatory information.54 Mr. El Halabi’s lawyers challenged the use of secret evidence in

front of the Supreme Court, which — on 12 January 2017 — ordered part of the non-

disclosed evidence to be shared with the defence. However, almost one and a half years

after the arrest of Mr. El Halabi, the defence lawyer has still not managed to see all of the

unprivileged evidence against his client, raising serious concerns as to his right to defence

and to a fair trial.55

32. Since the beginning of Mr. El Halabi’s trial, several additional charges have been

brought against him as a part of the same case, following unsuccessful offers of plea

bargains by the prosecution. The deals pertain to a few years of imprisonment, on the

condition that the accused gives his agreement in that regard before the court starts

examining classified evidence. The pressure exercised on suspects to agree to plea bargains

— that imply pleading guilty to certain charges in return for what is usually a more lenient

sentence — is extremely high.56 In view of the minimal rate of acquittals of Palestinians

before Israeli courts, lawyers encourage their clients to accept such deals, in order to get a

lower sentence and avoid custody during lengthy trials. 57 Defendants who have

continuously pleaded not guilty eventually concede to charges through a plea bargain, as

51 See www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Torture/UNVFVT/Interpretation_torture_2011_EN.pdf.

52 A/HRC/6/17/Add.4, para. 24; See also http://stoptorture.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/When-

the-Exception-Becomes-the-Rule-2010.pdf.

53 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, art. 15;

and United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of

Anyone Deprived of their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, guideline 12.

54 The disclosure of information may be restricted to protect national security but has to be necessary

and proportional to the end sought. See United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies

and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a

Court, guideline 13.

55 According to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the use of secret evidence might affect the

right to a fair trial to such extent as to render the detention arbitrary. Communication provided by the

Working Group to OHCHR, dated 5 January 2018.

56 According to the Israeli State Attorney’s 2016 report, 77 per cent of convictions were based on a plea

bargain. Available from www.justice.gov.il/Units/StateAttorney/Documents/Annual-Report-2016.pdf

(in Hebrew).

57 See www.btselem.org/download/201506_presumed_guilty_eng.pdf.

was the case with Waheed al Bursh, who was released on 12 January 2017,58 and Khalida

Jarrar in 2016 (see para. 55 below).

4. Arbitrary detention of children

33. The detention of Palestinian children is of particular concern. As of 30 June 2017,

318 Palestinian children were in Israeli detention.59 Between 1 November 2016 and 30

September 2017, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) documented 135 cases of

detained children, including three under administrative detention.60 After falling into disuse

for almost four years, the Israeli practice of administrative detention of children resumed in

October 2015.61

34. Previous reports on the arrest and detention of Palestinian children reflected

concerns relating to the lack of adherence to international standards by Israel.62 The military

justice system appears particularly problematic regarding respect of procedural guarantees.

Interrogations of children are conducted in the absence of parents, close relatives or a

lawyer, and are not audio-visually recorded.63 Children detained under military orders are

usually not promptly informed, in a language that they understand, of the charges against

them, and they may be detained for up to four days before being brought before a military

judge.64 According to UNICEF, in almost 10 per cent of the cases of detention of children

monitored between 1 November 2016 and 31 September 2017, the children reported having

been held in solitary confinement for periods ranging from 6 to 20 days. In over 65 per cent

of the cases monitored by the NGO Defence for Children International — 66.2 per cent in

the West Bank and 88.5 per cent in East Jerusalem — children were shown, or made to

sign, documentation written in Hebrew, a language that they usually do not understand.

35. During the reporting period, OHCHR continued to monitor cases where it appears

that Palestinian children were arrested and detained in violation of the Convention on the

Rights of the Child.65 According to the Convention, the detention of children should be

used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time, and the

best interest of the child should be a primary consideration. 66 The Secretary-General

previously noted that the large number of Palestinian children in Israeli detention seemed

incompatible with its use as a measure of last resort.67

36. On 19 March 2017, Sofyan, an 8-year-old boy from the Old City of Hebron, was

arrested by Israeli soldiers as he was walking in the street near the settlement of Kiryat

Arba to retrieve a toy he had dropped on his way to visit his grandparents. He was

reportedly approached and grabbed from behind by an Israeli soldier, who then forcibly

took him from house to house insisting that he identify alleged stone-throwers.68 He was

released after an hour.

37. On 7 April 2017, 17-year-old Musa Hammad was arrested at night by the Israeli

Security Forces and brought to Ofer Prison, where he was interrogated about a car ramming

58 See A/HRC/34/36, para. 21; and

www.ps.undp.org/content/papp/en/home/presscenter/pressreleases/2017/01/04/undp-statement-

attributable-to-a-undp-spokesperson-on-waheed-al-bursh-case.html.

59 Data provided to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) by the Israel Prison Service.

60 According to statistics compiled by B’tselem, there were two children in administrative detention at

the end of June 2017. Available from www.btselem.org/administrative_detention/statistics.

61 See A/HRC/31/40, para. 41; A/71/364, para. 34.

62 See A/HRC/34/38, paras. 56–57; A/HRC/34/36, para. 19–20 and 25–30; A/HRC/31/40, paras. 38–43;

A/71/364, paras. 33–37; and A/70/351, para. 48.

63 See CRC/C/ISR/CO/2-4, paras. 35 and 74.

64 Ibid., paras. 73–74; and

www.unicef.org/oPt/UNICEF_oPt_Children_in_Israeli_Military_Detention_Observations_and_Reco

mmendations_-_6_March_2013.pdf.

65 Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 37 (b); see A/HRC/34/38, para. 58.

66 Convention of the Rights of the Child, arts. 3 (1) and 37 (b).

67 See A/71/86, para. 24.

68 See Gili Cohen, “Palestinian mother says Israeli soldiers forced 8-year-old son to help nab stone

throwers”, Haaretz, 23 March 2017. Available from www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.779173.

attack that his brother had allegedly conducted. Musa, who denied any knowledge of the

attack, reported having been ill-treated during his arrest and detention. He was held for two

months in administrative detention and consequently missed his high-school exams.

38. During the reporting period, the Working Group issued an opinion concerning the

detention of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy from East Jerusalem, concluding that the non-

observance of procedural guarantees was of such gravity as to give the deprivation of

liberty an arbitrary character.69 It is not the first time that the Working Group has qualified

as arbitrary instances of Palestinian children detained by Israel.70 Child detention by Israel

might also be considered as arbitrary as it does not appear to be used as a measure of last

resort, as required by the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

39. Between 1 January and 31 October 2017, the Palestinian authorities in the West

Bank reportedly arrested and detained 335 children.71 This high figure raises concerns as to

whether child detention is being used as a measure of last resort in the West Bank.

C. Detention for exercise of guaranteed fundamental freedoms

40. The second legal category identified by the Working Group appears to be

particularly relevant in the present context. All duty bearers have indeed continued to resort

to arbitrary detention during the reporting period, mainly in order to curtail political dissent

or the expression thereof and to impede the work of journalists and human rights defenders.

Fundamental freedoms, such as the freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and

association, may be restricted, but only as provided by the law and necessary for the

protection of the rights and freedoms of others, as well as for the protection of national

security, public safety, order, health or morals.72

1. Freedom of expression on social media

41. During the reporting period, numerous Palestinians were arrested and charged by the

Israeli authorities for incitement on Facebook.73 Situations underlying these charges range

from the posting of a picture of a Palestinian killed by the Israeli Security Forces during

clashes, to the use of language that could be classified as hate speech. Based on files

examined by OHCHR, it is questionable in a number of cases whether the effective

incitement potential and the suspect’s criminal intent are sufficiently evident to justify

criminal liability. It is not unusual that — shortly before the completion of a sentence for

incitement, often based on a plea bargain — a military order is issued to prolong the

detention based on security arguments. While some cases may seem justified, it appears

that there is a real risk for Palestinians of arrest on grounds of alleged incitement while

legitimately exercising their right to freedom of expression on social media.

42. On 24 June 2017, the so-called Palestinian cybercrime law was adopted by

Presidential Decree No. 16 of 2017. While it might be a necessary step to regulate the

commission of crimes via the Internet, the law raises strong concerns about its potential to

curtail free speech. It notably criminalizes the publication of data — and the creation of

websites intended to publish such data — that violates public morality and public order,

endangers community safety, or insults holy sites, religions and beliefs and family values.

Those overly broad terms have the potential to be interpreted to excessively undermine

freedom of expression. The law was adopted within a general context of restrictions on

69 See opinion No. 3/2017, para. 41.

70 See opinions No. 13/2016 and No. 24/2016.

71 Data provided to OHCHR by the Palestinian police.

72 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, arts. 19, 21 and 22; see also Human Rights

Committee general comment No. 34, paras. 21–36.

73 According to the Palestinian Prisoners Commission, Addameer Prisoners Support and Human Rights

Association, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights and Palestinian Prisoners Club, 470 indictments

based on Facebook posts were issued from 1 October 2015 to 31 October 2017 (including 220 in

2017).

freedom of expression74 and civil society was not consulted regarding its drafting.75 This

law served as the basis for the arrest and detention of journalists and human rights

defenders (see paras. 51–52 below). During the reporting period, 77 cases of arrests in

violation of guaranteed freedoms were referred to the Independent Commission for Human

Rights.

43. In Gaza, OHCHR monitored cases of individuals arrested and detained for posting

opinions on social media that could be considered to be critical of the Gaza authorities. In

all these cases, the individuals were released without charge after a few days or weeks,

upon signing commitments to, notably, uphold the law and refrain from public criticism.

Most of these cases monitored by OHCHR included allegations of ill-treatment during

interrogation.

44. On 30 May 2017, a teacher was arrested by the internal security agency for a post on

social media expressing disapproval of an official for stating that Gaza was a prosperous

place. He was released after four days. On 4 July 2017, another Palestinian man from Gaza

— well known for his critical stance against the authorities in Gaza — was arrested by the

internal security agency on accusations of incitement after having called on social media for

a protest against the electricity crisis. He was released after 12 days. OHCHR also

monitored the case of an individual detained for having allegedly participated in the popular

protests against the electricity crisis in January 2017. In another case, on 19 April 2017,

Mahmoud Sulieman Mohammad al Ziq, the Secretary-General of the National Work

Committee in Gaza, known for his critical position against the authorities in Gaza, was

assaulted and kidnapped by unidentified men. He was advised to refrain from talking about

politics, including in relation to the electricity crisis, before being released on the same day.

45. On 27 April 2017, a social media activist and member of the Popular Front for the

Liberation of Palestine was arrested by the internal security agency, reportedly for having

posted an excerpt from a novel by a Palestinian writer about the plight of Palestinian

refugees. He was detained for two days. His access to a lawyer and contact with his family

were delayed and he was reportedly subjected to ill-treatment.

2. Journalists and human rights defenders

46. All duty bearers have been resorting to the arrest and detention of journalists and

human rights defenders. These cases may amount to arbitrary detention as the practice was

most likely motivated by the exercise of the individuals’ rights to freedom of expression

and assembly.

47. Omar Nazzal, a Palestinian journalist and member of the Palestinian Journalists

Syndicate, was arrested by the Israeli Security Forces on 23 April 2016, as he was about to

cross the Al-Karameh/Allenby/King Hussein Bridge to represent the Syndicate at a meeting

in Sarajevo. 76 The initial administrative detention order was for four months and was

extended three times, up to a total of 10 months. Mr. Nazzal was eventually released on 20

February 2017. His detention was based on his alleged affiliation to the Popular Front for

the Liberation of Palestine as a threat to the security of Israel. However, he was not only

interrogated about his political affiliation, but also about his work as a journalist and his

membership of the Syndicate. In a decision issued on 24 May 2016, the military judge

approved the administrative detention, based on the fact that the detainee could not be tried

under criminal procedure because of the confidential nature of the evidence. This may

suggest that administrative detention is used as an alternative to criminal proceedings, in

contradiction of international law.77

74 Twenty-seven websites — mainly linked to Hamas or opposition leader Mohammad Dahlan — were

closed by the Attorney General in June 2017 and remain offline at the time of writing (see

A/HRC/37/38).

75 Following strong criticism by civil society, the Palestinian Authority agreed to revise the law. This

process was ongoing at the time of writing.

76 See opinion No. 31/2017.

77 Fourth Geneva Convention, art. 68; and 1958 ICRC Commentary thereto.

48. Hasan Safadi, a Palestinian journalist and media coordinator with the NGO

Addameer Prisoners Support and Human Rights Association, remained in administrative

detention during the reporting period. His arrest by the Israeli Security Forces, on 1 May

2016, at the Al-Karameh/Allenby/King Hussein Bridge border crossing on his way back

from an Arab youth conference in Tunisia, was related to his visit to Lebanon 15 months

earlier. As he was set to be released on bail on 10 June 2016, a six-month administrative

detention order was issued against him, which was renewed twice during the reporting

period even though he had been sentenced to three months’ imprisonment on 27 October

2016. Mr. Safadi was finally released on 7 December, having spent more than a year and a

half in administrative detention.78

49. Another Palestinian human rights defender who remained in Israeli administrative

detention during the reporting period is Hassan Karajah, youth coordinator for the Stop the

Wall movement. Released in 2014 after serving a 22-month sentence for having visited

Lebanon, he was rearrested on 12 July 2016 for alleged affiliation to the Popular Front for

the Liberation of Palestine and to Al-Hirak al-Shababi, a Palestinian youth movement

outlawed by Israel on 11 July 2016 for alleged involvement in terrorist activities against

Israel. Mr. Karajah was released on 9 November 2017. Under the cover of legality, it

appears that administrative detention is used by Israel to detain Palestinians in order to

sanction the exercise of guaranteed freedoms, on the ground that it might prejudice the

security of Israel.

50. As stated by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the

Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of

human rights defenders on 7 July 2017,79 the situation of Issa Amro, a Palestinian human

rights defender who runs the Youth Against Settlements organization in Hebron, remains of

concern. A well-known advocate for non-violence, Mr. Amro has been subjected to regular

harassment and arrests by the Israeli Security Forces, most recently on 29 February 2016.80

His first hearing at Ofer Military Court took place on 23 November 2016. His indictment

includes 18 charges, some of them going back to 2010. Mainly repetitive, the charges

include alleged obstruction, insult and assault of soldiers, incitement and participation in

assemblies without a permit. The reported facts behind the charges appear ludicrous within

the context of peaceful demonstrations and the heavy military presence in Hebron. On 19

February 2017, the court dismissed the defence’s claim that prosecuting Mr. Amro on such

old charges constituted an abuse of justice designed to halt his activity as a human rights

defender. Trial monitoring by OHCHR reveals that the Israeli Security Forces and the

military prosecutors do not distinguish between violent and non-violent protest, incitement

and the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression and that free speech and peaceful

demonstrations are considered as acts disturbing the peace or harming public order.81

51. On 4 September 2017, while on trial before the Israeli military court — a process

which was ongoing at the time of writing — Mr. Amro was arrested under the newly

promulgated cybercrime law by the Preventive Security Service. His arrest resulted from

his calling into question, on social media, the arrest of the director of Al-Hurriya radio

station, Ayman Al-Qawmeh, by the Palestinian Authority. Mr. Amro believes that his arrest

might be linked to his exposure of a number of Palestinian officials concerning corruption

issues, as well as to his candidacy for the latest Palestinian municipal elections. He was

released on bail on 10 September 2017 and — at the time of writing — was awaiting a final

court decision. Mr. Amro’s case is emblematic insofar as it illustrates the risks that human

rights defenders face regarding arrest and prosecution by both the Israeli and the Palestinian

authorities.

52. On 9 August 2017, six journalists were arrested by the General Intelligence Service

under the cybercrime law in Hebron, Bethlehem and Nablus. They were released six days

78 Hassan Safadi was released on 7 December 2017.

79 See www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21855&LangID=E.

80 See A/71/355, para. 33; and A/HRC/34/36, para. 47.

81 Military orders limit freedoms of expression and assembly (Military Order 1651, sect. 251 (b), and

Order No. 101 Regarding the Prohibition of Acts of Incitement and Hostile Propaganda.

later, as a result of pressure brought to bear by the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate. They

were reportedly interrogated about the publication of information that fell under the broad

scope of the cybercrime law and that could affect the security of the Palestinian Authority.

However, no indictment was issued against them. Interviewed by OHCHR, the journalists

believe their arrest was linked to the political divide between the West Bank and Gaza and

to the arrest of a journalist in Gaza as described in the next paragraph.82

53. A Palestinian television reporter was arrested by the internal security agency in Gaza

on 16 June, on allegations of collaboration with the Palestinian Authority. His detention for

almost two months, as extended by the military prosecuting authority, was not based on any

judicial order. He was denied access to a legal representative within the detention facility

and first met his lawyer in court one month after his arrest. He was eventually released on

$200 bail on 13 August 2017. There were also concerns that he had been subjected to ill-

treatment during his detention.

54. After the Gaza authorities announced, on 24 April 2017, that they would take

measures against individuals and institutions circulating rumours, a journalist from Gaza

City was arrested on 25 April and detained until the next day for allegedly circulating fake

information and rumours in the Palestinian media. He was released after undertaking in

writing not to undermine law and order by spreading rumours. He also published a

corrigendum and apologized to his readers.

3. Political affiliation

55. Palestinian civil society leaders Khalida Jarrar and Khitam Saafin were arrested by

the Israeli Security Forces on 2 July 2017, during night raids on their homes, for their

alleged membership of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a claim that both

women deny. Ms. Saafin is the president of the union of Palestinian women’s committees,

an organization that works for the community-based economic and social development of

women in the West Bank and Gaza. Ms. Jarrar is a member of the Palestinian Legislative

Council and an outspoken critic of the Israeli occupation. She is also a member of the board

of directors of the Addameer Prisoners Support and Human Rights Association and of a

national Palestinian committee for the follow-up with the International Criminal Court.

Neither the detainees, nor their lawyers, have had access to the material against them,

which is being held secret by the court. Ms. Saafin was released on 2 October 2017, after

completing a three-month administrative detention order, Ms. Jarrar’s six-month detention

order expires on 1 January 2018.83

56. On 9 March 2017, Samira Halayqa, another Palestinian Legislative Council member,

was arrested by the Israeli Security Forces during a night raid. Transferred to Ofer Prison,

she was reportedly interrogated regarding her alleged affiliation to Hamas during the 2006

election and her political opinions as expressed on social media. She was charged with

incitement and participation in activities organized by Hamas. She rejected those charges,

which, according to her, were related to her involvement in legitimate activities, such as

participation in peaceful gatherings calling for the respect of Palestinians’ rights. The court

ordered her release twice for lack of evidence. It was only after a third order that she was

eventually released on bail on 9 May 2017. At the time of writing, hearings relating to Ms.

Halayqa’s case were ongoing. There are concerns that she was ill-treated during her arrest

and detention and denied proper medication.

57. In the West Bank, there are concerns about the Palestinian authorities arresting

individuals who oppose their policies. On 31 August 2017, Wahid Abu Mariya, known for

his opposition to the Palestinian Authority, was arrested by the joint Palestinian security

forces — on the orders of the Preventive Security Services — at his home in the Hebron

82 See A/HRC/37/38, para. 60, for summary of another case of possible arbitrary detention of a

journalist.

83 Ms. Jarrar was detained for 14 months between 2015 and 2016, as she was facing trial for alleged

membership of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The decision of the military court to

release her on bail was reversed following an appeal by the prosecution. She was released in June

2016 after accepting a plea bargain; see also Working Group opinion No. 15/2016.

Governorate. He was detained by the General Intelligence Service, military intelligence and

the Preventive Security Services in Jericho, until his release on 21 September 2017, four

days after the court ordered his release, without indictment. His arrest and incommunicado

detention for four days raise concerns as to ill-treatment, including torture during

interrogation.

58. In Hebron, several people were arrested while participating in peaceful

demonstrations, mainly for alleged affiliation to the group Hizb ut-Tahrir, an Islamist

organization critical of the Palestinian Authority. On 11 February 2017, the Preventive

Security Services arrested approximately 50 persons in the context of a demonstration.

While forcibly dispersing the crowd, they reportedly assaulted and arrested dozens of

participants and passers-by, who were all released within 24 hours. The same day, leading

figures of Hizb ut-Tahrir were also arrested at checkpoints while entering the city. They

were held by the General Intelligence Service in Hebron and later transferred to Jericho,

where they were detained for between 7 and 15 days without being indicted. A similar

operation involving the arrest of individuals allegedly affiliated to Hizb ut-Tahrir took place

on 24 February 2017, with two individuals reportedly being detained by the General

Intelligence Service for over a month.

59. In Gaza, the internal security agency has also been detaining individuals on the basis

of their political affiliation. On 13 April 2017, a woman was arrested by the internal

security agency and detained for 10 days, during which period she was reportedly

interrogated on her political affiliation to Fatah. She was released without being officially

charged. The arrest and detention of members of Salafist groups, whose strict version of

political Islam is perceived as a threat by the Hamas regime, continued during the reporting

period.84 In December 2016, the security forces in Gaza launched a campaign and arrested

dozens of members of Salafist groups. Other members were arrested during a second

campaign launched after a suicide bomb attack on 17 August 2017. Many of them,

including children, are currently being held by the internal security agency and some have,

to date, not been charged.

60. OHCHR documented the following two cases of arrest based on allegations of

affiliation with Salafist groups. On 19 December 2016, a man from Rafah was arrested

during a joint operation of the internal security agency and the Izz al-Din al-Qassam

Brigades. He appeared before the military court on 12 February 2017, where the prosecutor

was not in a position to provide any evidence against him. He was eventually released on

26 April 2017 without being officially charged. He reported having been subjected to ill-

treatment during his interrogation. Another man from Gaza City was reportedly arrested on

11 December 2016 by masked men belonging to the internal security agency. Although the

military court ordered his release on bail on 20 February 2017, the internal security agency

refused to implement the order until 12 April 2017, following the intervention of the

Director of the Security Forces. At the time of writing, five hearings had taken place and a

decision was pending.

IV. Conclusion and recommendations

61. The present report outlines the high risk that Palestinians face of being

arbitrarily deprived of their liberty, both by the Israeli Security Forces and the

Preventive Security Services. This is especially the case for Palestinians openly

opposing the Israeli occupation, or the policies of their government in the West Bank

or in Gaza. Journalists and human rights defenders have been particularly targeted

within this context. Cases monitored by OHCHR show how Palestinians risk being

arrested for having participated in peaceful protests, questioned acts of their own

government — including on social media — or for alleged political affiliation.

62. While Israeli legislation allows for indefinite administrative detention,

Palestinian safeguards against the arbitrary deprivation of liberty are bypassed

84 See A/HRC/28/80, para. 53.

through the use of executive powers. Administrative detention is used by both the

Israeli and the Palestinian authorities to circumvent the national criminal justice

system in order to detain individuals for vague or undisclosed security reasons,

against whom evidence is insufficient, or who are due to be released. Cases monitored

by OHCHR reveal how all duty bearers blatantly disregard the principle of fair trial

and due process guarantees, particularly when an individual is deemed to endanger

national security, public order or political cohesion, or has information of interest to

the authorities.

63. Palestinians, including children, are subjected to arbitrary arrest and

detention. Detainees’ lack of knowledge of the grounds for detention and its length

further violates rights inherent to human dignity, in addition to the obligations of

Israel — as the occupying Power — to treat the Palestinian population humanely at

all times. It is of serious concern that, in most cases, detention appears to be motivated

by discriminatory grounds, including religion, national origin, birth or other status

and political or other opinion.

64. Human rights law prescribes that anyone who has been the victim of unlawful

arrest or detention should have an enforceable right to compensation. 85 However,

there is no realistic way for Palestinian victims of arbitrary detention to seek redress,

as their detention is usually covered by the seal of legality of a court ruling or a

decision of the executive.

Recommendations to all duty bearers

65. All violations and abuses of the human rights of Palestinians must immediately

cease and be promptly, impartially and independently investigated; those responsible

must be held accountable and the victims provided with effective redress. All duty

bearers and parties must respect international law and comply with their obligations

and responsibilities under international human rights law and international

humanitarian law.

66. All duty bearers must end their practices amounting to arbitrary detention, in

particular they should:

(a) End the practice of administrative detention and ensure that all

administrative detainees are promptly charged or released;

(b) Ensure that the rights of detainees are respected, including all rights

inherent to a fair trial, including the right to defence and not to be tortured or ill-

treated;

(c) Ensure that all children are treated with due consideration for their age

and detained only as a last resort and, if so, for the shortest possible time, and for the

purpose of rehabilitation;

(d) Respect, protect and fulfil the rights to freedom of expression, opinion

and peaceful assembly and remove all unlawful restrictions to these rights from

statutory law;

(e) Ensure that the rights of journalists and human rights defenders in the

Occupied Palestinian Territory are respected and protected and that they can conduct

their activities without harassment or being subjected to legal proceedings in violation

of international human rights law;

(f) Ensure that victims of arbitrary detention are provided with appropriate

compensation.

85 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 9 (5).