Administrative Detention

Ahmad Qattamesh - Forty-three months in administrative detention

29 December 2013

Update: Ahmad Qattamesh was released on 26 Dec. 2013

Ahmad Qattamesh. Photo courtesy of the familyAhmad Qattamesh, 61, is currently one of the longest-held administrative detainees in Israel. He was held in administrative detention for approximately four and a half years from 1993 to 1998. In May 2011, the military detained him once more again under an administrative order, and he has been in custody ever since. The order for his detention will expire on 28 December 2013.

In 1994, B’Tselem first addressed the detention of Ahmad Qattamesh, in a chapter on administrative detention in its report Human Rights Violations: 1992-1993. In 1997, B’Tselem returned once more to the Qattamesh case in its report Prisoners of Peace, writing as follows:

Ahmad Qattamesh - Forty-three months in administrative detention 

Ahmad Qattamesh, a 45-year old writer from al-Bireh is married and has a seven-year old daughter. He was arrested in September 1992 and charged in the Hebron military court with assistance to an illegal organization, possession of illegal material, and falsification of an identity card. Because he had been held for a year before his trial began, the military judge ordered his release. The military court of appeals upheld this decision. In October 1993, however, before he could be released, a six-month administrative detention order was issued for him. Both the military judge and the High Court of Justice upheld this decision. In the ruling, Chief Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak wrote:

"Administrative detention is not a substitute for detention until the end of [judicial] proceedings. When a court decides to release a defendant until the end of proceedings against him, the military commander is not authorized - on the basis of the same information - to detain the defendant until the conclusion of proceedings ... However, there is no reason that the defendant ... cannot be held in administrative detention, as long as the evidence supporting the administrative detention is not the same as the evidence supporting detention for the duration of the legal proceedings. Indeed, in a democratic regime, bringing criminal charges is preferable to administrative detention. However, when there is prima facie evidence against a suspect, part of which can be revealed (and used in a criminal trial) and part of which is classified (and therefore cannot be used in a criminal trial), it is best to prosecute on the basis of the non-classified information ... In this situation, if the suspect is acquitted of the criminal charges, there is nothing to prevent good faith use of the classified information for administrative detention proceedings... If this is the case regarding acquittal of criminal charges, then it is even more relevant with regard to administrative detention prior to the conclusion of the criminal trial."

The military arrested Qattamesh once more on 24 April 2011 and kept him in custody until 3 May 2011, on which date he entered administrative detention. Since then, the administrative detention order has been renewed six times. Adv. Jawad Boulous applied to the High Court of Justice four times on behalf of Qattamesh regarding the decisions to keep him in administrative detention, but all four petitions were rejected. At present, he is being held at Megiddo Prison. On 3 October 2013, in its latest decision to date, the military court for administrative matters approved a four-month administrative detention order for Qattamesh, beginning on 28 August 2013. That said, the judge ruled that Qattamesh’s administrative detention would end when the order expires on 28 December 2013, “unless there is material and significant intelligence and/or regional change which dictate extending this time period”.

The military law that applies in the West Bank grants the military commander there the authority to hold a person in administrative detention for a maximum period of six months, yet also authorizes him to repeatedly extend the detention as long as he believes that there are “reasonable grounds for assuming that public or regional security necessitate holding a particular person in detention”. This procedure is ostensibly subject to judicial review, as issuing the order and its renewal requires authorization by a military judge. In addition, there is a military appellate court. However, deliberations in both courts are held in camera, with information withheld even from the detainee and his legal counsel. The judge may deviate from evidentiary law and “accept evidence in the absence of the detainee or his representative or without disclosing it to them”, if convinced that disclosing the evidence may “compromise the security of the area or public security”.

On 31 October 2013, there were 140 Palestinians being held in Israeli administrative detention. Among them were Ahmad Qattamesh who has been in detention for over two and a half years, another person who has been held for over three years, and another for over two years. Nine other persons who are currently being held in administrative detention have been in custody for more than a year and a half.

Under international law, administrative detention is allowed under certain circumstances. However, because of the serious harm to due process inherent in this measure and the obvious danger of its abuse, international law has imposed rigid restrictions on its application. According to international law, administrative detention can be used only in the most exceptional cases and only as a last resort to prevent danger that cannot be averted by less damaging means.

Israel's use of administrative detention blatantly violates the restrictions of international law. Israel carries it out in a highly classified manner that denies detainees the possibility of mounting a proper defense. Moreover, the detention has no upper time limit. Over the years, Israel has placed thousands of Palestinians in administrative detention for prolonged periods of time, without trying them, without informing them of the charges against them, and without allowing them or their counsel to examine the evidence. In this way, the military judicial system ignores the right to freedom and due process, the right of defendants to state their case, and the presumption of innocence, all of which are protections clearly enshrined in both Israeli and international law.

B’Tselem calls upon the government of Israel to release immediately Qattamesh and all other administrative detainees. Alternatively, if there is evidence against any administrative detainee, Israel must accord him due process and try him for the alleged offenses.

Suggested items

Palestinian boy during a protest against administrative detention at the Ofer Prison gate. Photo by Ahmad Al-Bazz, Activestills, 19 Dec. 2019

Administrative Detention

Palestinian administrative detainees boycotting court proceedings for 4 months – while Israel continue to uphold them regardless

Since 1 January 2022, all the Palestinians in Israeli administrative detention have been boycotting the military court proceedings in their cases. No Israeli official has addressed their concerns, and the courts continue to hear the detention orders as usual. Since the boycott began, the courts have heard dozens of cases – in the absence of the detainees and their legal counsel. The boycott is intended to unmask the façade of judicial review regarding administrative detention orders. In these hearings, the detainees merely play the part of extras in a proceeding aimed at sanctioning their incarceration. The state’s choice to continue the hearings as usual reinforces this claim, demonstrating that the detainees’ physical presence in court is meaningless. According to official military figures, the amount of administrative detention orders rejected by the courts is negligible. In the vast majority of cases, the judges unwaveringly accept the military commander’s discretion, at most slightly shortening the length of the detention: From the beginning of 2009 through 2013, a total of 3,996 administrative detention orders were issued for Palestinians. Of the orders heard by the courts during that time, 2,422 (about 60%) were authorized and 1,052 (about 26%) were shortened with no restriction placed on their extension. Another 99 orders (2.5%) were rejected, 196 (5%) were shortened and their extension restricted, and 214 (5.3%) were authorized and their extension restricted. From the beginning of 2015 to the end of July 2017, a total of 3,909 administrative detention orders were issued for Palestinians. Of the orders heard by the courts during that time, 2,953 (about 75%) were authorized and 390 (about 10%) were shortened with no restrictions placed on their extension. Another 48 orders (1.2%) were rejected, 181 (4.6%) were shortened and their extension restricted, and 320 (8.1%) were authorized and their extension restricted. The decision to place a Palestinian in administrative detention is made by the regional military commander – without indictment or trial. Under the military law that applies in the West Bank, a person can be administratively detained for six months. However, the order can be extended indefinitely, so the detention is effectively unlimited and detainees never know when they will be released. Individuals held in administrative detention must be brought before a military judge within eight days – either of the original detention order or of its extension. The judge may uphold the order, reject it, or shorten the period of detention stipulated in it. The decision may be appealed to the Military Court of Appeals or the subject of a High Court petition. However, the judicial review is largely a façade. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the judges accept the ISA’s claim regarding the “security risk” that justifies the detainee’s immediate incarceration. As the evidence for the claim is not disclosed to the detainee and his counsel, he never knows the reason for the detention and cannot challenge the allegations supposedly made against him. In some cases, the judges request to see the classified material; in others, they do not review it or make any attempt to examine the information that led to the detention. In any case, the fact that the detainee cannot address this information empties the judicial process of any meaning. The major problem with the judicial review is the court’s working assumption that administrative detention is a lawful measure. The judges only question how this power is implemented: did the military commander apply reasonable discretion in the case before them? At no point do they examine the legality of the measure itself. In doing so, the judges completely ignore the fact that Israel’s use of administrative detention renders it unlawful. In violation of the restrictions placed by international law, Israel makes routine, extensive use of administrative detention. Over the years, it has placed thousands of Palestinians behind bars without charging them, without telling them what they are accused of, without disclosing the alleged evidence to them or to their lawyers, and without informing them when they will be released. According to the Israel Prison Service, Israel is currently holding 579 Palestinians in administrative detention. During the first and second intifadas, Israel held many hundreds of Palestinians in administrative detention. Since March 2002, not a single month has gone by without Israel holding at least 100 Palestinians in administrative detention. In 2003 (during the second intifada), the figure crossed the 1,000 mark several times. Unlike a prison sentence following trial, which is meant to punish a person for having committed a crime, administrative detention is meant to prevent a future crime. However, Israel uses this measure as a quick and easy substitute for a criminal trial, especially when the authorities have no proof of guilt or do not wish to disclose the evidence supposedly in their possession. Israel also exploits the availability of this measure to incarcerate Palestinians solely for holding particular political opinions or participating in nonviolent political activity. Palestinians are held in administrative detention for lengthy periods, lasting from months to several years with repeated extensions. In many cases, a new detention order is issued just before the current order expires, when the detainee is already preparing to go home and the family is waiting. Extensions are a matter of course. For example: At the end of August 2012, Israel was holding 184 Palestinians in administrative detention, 29 of them for half a year to a year (i.e., their detention had been extended at least once) and 106 for more than a year (i.e., their detention had been extended at least twice). At the end of August 2016, Israel was holding 652 Palestinians in administrative detention, 279 of them for half a year to a year (i.e., their detention had been extended at least once) and 96 for more than a year (i.e., their detention had been extended at least twice). At the end of August 2020, Israel was holding 355 Palestinians in administrative detention, 134 of them for half a year to a year (i.e., their detention had been extended at least once) and 54 for more than a year (i.e., their detention had been extended at least twice). Administrative detention is a cruel measure that the Israeli regime uses extensively and unlawfully. For the detainees, the hardship of being incarcerated in harsh prison conditions and being cut off from one’s family, friends and daily life is compounded by unbearable uncertainty – regarding both the reason for the detention and the date of release. The detention orders are heard in military courts, where the judges and prosecutors are uniformed Israelis operating by power of military orders. Some administrative detention orders are also the subject of High Court petitions, which are heard by Supreme Court Justices. They, too, do not represent the interests of the society to which the detainees belong, but rather the interests of the occupation regime. As such, they do not serve as an impartial arbitrator seeking justice; instead, they are a key mechanism in upholding Israel’s control over Palestinians in the West Bank.

26 April 2022

Relative waits to visit detainee at Ofer Prison. Photo: Oren Ziv, activestills.org, 29 Oct 2017

Administrative Detention

Israel holds even Palestinian minors in administrative detention

In early November 2021, according to figures the Israel Prison Service provided HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual, Israel was holding 482 Palestinians in administrative detention. According to the Palestinian Authority Prisoners' Office, four of them are minors. Administrative detention is incarceration without trial alleging that a person intends to commit offense – without having done so yet. As the detainees are not given the grounds for their detention, which are based on classified evidence, they cannot mount a defense or refute the allegations made against them. Furthermore, unlike a regular prison sentence, administrative detention may be extended repeatedly, so the detainees cannot know when they will be released. Israel uses this measure as a matter of routine. Over the years, it has held thousands of Palestinians in administrative detention for extended periods, some lasting years. Formally, judges review the administrative detention orders and the detainees may appeal to the Supreme Court. Yet this is merely a semblance of judicial overview and, barring highly exceptional cases, judges approve the vast majority of orders. Administrative detention deeply affects the families of the detainees, especially in the case of minors. The families do not know when their loved ones will be released, and are forced to live in uncertainty for months on end. As Israel does not permit them regular contact, they have no way of knowing the physical and mental state of their incarcerated relatives. Phone calls are prohibited and visits are limited to a brief meeting behind a glass partition, with long intervals in between. B'Tselem field researchers collected testimonies from the parents of three Palestinian minors currently being held in administrative detention. They described living in constant anxiety over their sons' wellbeing, with the uncertainty of never knowing when they will be released. In a testimony he gave B'Tselem field researcher Iyad Hadad, Mu'amar Nakhleh (49) from Ramallah described how his family is coping with the incarceration of his 17-year-old son Amal: Amal was born when his mother was six months pregnant. The doctors hooked him up to a ventilator and we feared he wouldn't survive. When we were asked for a name, we named him Amal (hope) because we hoped he would live. He was discharged from hospital about three months later. In June 2020, Amal started vomiting blood. He had difficulty breathing and swallowing. Medical tests found a tumor in his lungs, which required surgery that could only be performed at the French Hospital in Jerusalem. We applied for permits to enter Israel for me and for him, so I could accompany him to the surgery, but my request was denied on security grounds. The ISA summoned Amal for questioning at Ofer Prison. On 1 June 2020, he met with them. They checked his ID card and after making him wait for two hours, they told him to go home because the interrogator wasn't there. A few days later, we managed to sneak Amal into the hospital in Jerusalem with the help of some friends, and he had the surgery. He was discharged after five days. A few days later, someone from the ISA called us and summoned Amal for questioning again. I contacted the human rights organization Addameer, and they contacted the Israeli authorities and sent them his medical reports to prove he was ill. The Israelis informed Addameer he would not be arrested at that time. In October 2020, Amal was diagnosed with myasthenia gravis, a very rare disease that causes difficulty breathing and swallowing food, as well as cramps. He has to take medication every four hours. On 2 November 2020, Amal was on his way to Rawabi with friends when soldiers arrested him. He was held for 38 days and released on 10 December. On Monday, 18 January 2021, he was summoned to the Palestinian Intelligence offices. They held him there overnight, and he came home the following day. He only managed to sleep at home for one night. Then, on the night between Wednesday and Thursday, soldiers and ISA agents came to our house at 3:00 A.M. They searched the house, told Amal to get dressed and get his medication, and arrested him. I immediately contacted Addameer to could find out where they had taken him. They checked me and informed me that the ISA had transferred Amal to administrative detention at Megiddo Prison. Since then, his detention has been extended three times. His lawyer told us it might be extended a fourth time, and we're very anxious and tense. We don't have a moment’s peace. We worry about him all the time. His condition is currently stable and hasn’t grown worse, but he's at risk because of the length of the detention and his illness. On 19 September 2021, when they extended Amal's detention for the third time, it was harder and more painful than the previous extensions because that time, he wasn't given a week’s notice and we believed he was about to be released. It felt like everything was happening in slow motion. I had calculated the dates and imagined: Now Amal's getting out of prison, he’s about to arrive and knock on the door, now is the moment we meet, a dream come true. But all that was taken away from us at the last minute, when our lawyer told us that minutes before he was supposed to be released, his detention had been extended for four months. Since Amal was arrested, we've applied for a permit to visit him several times, but they only allowed his mother and me to visit him once, in April 2021. We saw him behind a glass partition and couldn't even hug him. The visit only lasted 40 minutes, which was barely enough time to ask him how he was doing and how his health was. He was tired and weak and said he was taking his medication regularly. I felt that he was just saying that so we wouldn't worry. Since the visit, we've applied every month, but all the requests have been rejected. They say I’m denied entry because I've been in prison, and that's why my wife is also denied. We submit requests every month. One time, the Red Cross informed us that we’d received permission to visit, but five days later they got back to us and said the ISA had gone back on their word and the permit had been revoked. That was really tough. Five days ago, we were informed we’ve received a permit to visit him on 8 November 2021. Amal's mother and I are now very anxious that our permit will be revoked again. Update: On 8 November 2021, Amal Nakhleh's father and brother visited him in prison. In a testimony she gave B'Tselem field researcher Musa Abu Hashhash, Safaa al-Harimi (43), a mother of five from Wadi Rahal in Bethlehem District, recounted the arrest of her 17-year-old son Sami: My son Sami ran our family's small grocery store. On 20 September 2021, while he was asleep in bed, soldiers entered our home. Sami yelled that he hadn't done anything and that he didn't want to go to prison. At first, they took him for questioning at the Russian Compound in Jerusalem. After 10 days, he was issued an administrative detention order for four months. Our lawyer said the arrest was probably related to incitement on Facebook, but he didn't know any more than that. At first, we didn't even know which prison Sami was in, until we contacted HaMoked and found out he was in Ofer Prison. I don't know why the military arrested my son. He worked in the grocery store from morning till night. It's very hard without him. I think about him all the time: when we sit down to eat, when I go into his room and see his empty bed. I keep calling the lawyer to check if there's any new information and if he's visited him. I'm trying to find out if he's coming home at the end of the four months’ detention, but no one knows. I worry about Sami very much. He's still a child and doesn't know how to deal with something like this. I saw how scared he was when he was arrested. In a testimony she gave B'Tselem field researcher Abdulkarim Sadi, Asmaa Mansur (37), a mother of four from Jenin, spoke about the administrative detention of her 17-year-old son Muhammad: In the early hours of 8 April 2021, soldiers entered our home. It was the first time in my life that happened to me. The soldiers broke the door down while we were asleep, and we woke up from their shouting. We ran to the door to stop them from entering the kids’ rooms. Three of our kids live with us – Muhammad (17), Masah (16) and Maryam (11). Meanwhile, the kids woke up from the shouting and came out of their rooms. The soldiers went for Muhammad immediately. I saw one of them hit him on the head with a rifle butt. Another one tied Muhammad’s hands together, and then they put him in one of the rooms. After about five minutes, they led him out of the house without letting us give him clothes, say goodbye or hug him. They took away his cell phone. I asked them to let me say goodbye to him, but they yelled at me and wouldn't let me come near. When they led Muhammad out, I was shocked to see dozens of soldiers surrounding the house in every direction. There was also a masked man in plain clothes with them. After they arrested Muhammad, he was taken for questioning at Jalameh Prison (Kishon) and held there for 28 days. Then he was transferred to administrative detention at Megiddo Prison. The first administrative detention order was issued for six months, until 8 October 2021. We expected him to be released, but the day before the order expired, the prison told us not to pick him up because his detention had been extended by another four months, until 8 February 2022. We couldn't believe it was happening. I still have an anxiety attack whenever I think about the day he was arrested. I'm very sad about Muhammad. He was an outstanding student. The day before he was arrested, he had a test in which he got an A. Being in prison has denied him the opportunity to continue studying in high school, and deprived me of the joy of seeing him graduate successfully. I worry he’ll be in prison for a long time and it will ruin his future. Muhammad hoped to study abroad after graduating from high school. Since Muhammad was arrested, we’ve only been allowed to visit him once. That was six months and five days after the arrest. It's hard to describe how shocking it is to see your son behind a glass partition. His father and I spoke with him on the phone for 45 minutes, through the glass. We both cried non-stop. Since then, only his lawyer has been able to visit him.

18 November 2021

Maher al-Akhras in the Hospital. Photo by Oren Ziv (Local call)

Administrative Detention

Israel to High Court: Dying Palestinian Still a Security Risk

Maher al-Akhras, a 49-year-old father of six from the Palestinian village of Silat a-Dhahr in the West Bank, has been on hunger strike for nearly 80 days to protest his administrative detention in Israel since early August 2020, which is due to end on 26 November 2020. The strike has left al-Akhras is on the verge of death. Despite his dire condition, Israel is insisting on keeping al-Akhras in custody. At a High Court of Justice hearing today, the state representative only agreed to pledge not to extend the administrative detention order. Justices Sohlberg, Mazuz and Willner directed al-Akhras’ lawyer, Ahlam Hadad, to convey him the state’s offer. Al-Akhras rejected the offer and announced he would end the hunger strike only upon release. Al-Akhras is protesting Israel’s use of administrative detention – one of the most extreme measures employed by the occupation regime. Administrative detainees do not know when they will be released, as the regional military commander can extend the detention order indefinitely based on classified evidence that the detainees are given no chance to disprove. Over the years, Israel has held thousands of Palestinians in administrative detention for periods ranging from a few months to several years. At certain points during the second intifada, Israel had more than 1,000 Palestinians in administrative detention at one time. In late August 2020, Israel was holding 355 Palestinians in administrative detention, including two minors. This morning’s hearing was not the first in the case, as al-Akhras had already petitioned the High Court when his condition deteriorated. On 23 September 2020 — after an ex-parte hearing and a review of the classified material — Justices Amit and Grosskopf ruled (with Justice Mintz dissenting) that they were “satisfied” the administrative detention was fully justified. They added, however, that due to his condition, al-Akhras no longer poses a threat and therefore the “preventive purpose” of the detention has ceased to exist. Yet instead of releasing him, the justices relied on the court’s magic solution for such cases: “suspension” of the detention order so it is not currently active. “Suspending” an administrative detention order is not a legislated procedure but rather an interpretive solution invented by the High Court to avoid reaching a decision on – and taking responsibility for – administrative detainees on the verge of death from a hunger strike whom the state refuses to release. The meaning of this procedure is unclear, as demonstrated by Justice Mazuz’s confusion regarding the implications of this previous ruling in a hearing this morning. Although administrative detention orders are formally subject to judicial review, the court rarely revokes them, instead approving them as is. Refusing to revoke an order even when the detainee is on the brink of death, and relying instead on an ambiguous legal solution, is extreme even in the harsh reality of the occupation. This is not the first time a Palestinian on hunger strike against administrative detention has reached death’s door, while the state refuses to release him and the High Court cooperates with this appalling conduct. In previous cases, the hunger strikers accepted the state’s offer and Israel continued unimpeded, with High Court backing, to implement the protested practices and procedures. Al-Akhras’ choice to remain on hunger strike until his release does not allow the state and the court to continue avoiding a decision. The responsibility for what happens next lies with those who can prevent his further deterioration and even death. They can still stop this from happening.

12 October 2020