I would like to express my appreciation for the important work carried out by this Committee. Israel has submitted its 3^rd Periodic Report, and we look forward to engaging in a constructive and meaningful substantive dialogue with this committee. But first, let me take this opportunity to introduce our delegation: Mr. Tuvia Israeli is the Deputy Head of our Mission in Geneva. Mr. Yehuda Shaffer, Senior Deputy to the State Attorney, from the Ministry of Justice, and Ms. Ady Schonmann, the international human rights law Adviser from the Legal Adviser's Office in the Foreign Ministry.

Since our last presentation before you, major developments have taken place in Israel - both in terms of law and practice, developments which I wish to illustrate today.

Mr. Chairman,

Despite the numerous, unique and pressing difficulties and dilemmas facing Israel in its unceasing struggle against terrorism, Israel remains fully committed to respecting its international obligations as a party to the human-rights treaties, with the Convention Against Torture, being a key component in this field. Being a free and open democracy, and despite the very unique challenges and threats to our democratic way of life, Israel has chosen to open itself to international scrutiny, inter alia - through the on-going dialogue with the UN human rights Treaty Bodies as well as other UN and non-UN mechanisms. We acknowledge that Israel, like every other democratic and responsible member of the international community, must impose restraints on its own actions, in conformity with human rights norms and principles of international law.

Israeli law strictly forbids all forms of torture or other ill treatment. The Israeli 1977 Penal Code prohibits the use of force or violence against a person for the purpose of extorting a confession to an offense or information relating to an offense. Human dignity is a fundamental principle in Israeli law as reflected in the Basic Law - Human Dignity and Liberty. This constitutional norm is the basis for judicial review in Israel.

It is Israel's position that the basic human rights of all persons under its jurisdiction must never be violated, regardless of the crimes committed. In striking a delicate balance in most difficult circumstances - a balance between safeguarding the human rights of detained persons on the one hand, and the human rights of the population at large, on the other hand, Israel has chosen to remain and function as a democratic society, committed to respecting human rights and the rule of law. At the same time, Israel recognizes its responsibility to protect the lives of all its citizens from the plague of terrorism.

Since our last appearance before you, we must regretfully note that the threat of terrorism facing Israel has not diminished. Unfortunately, the people of Israel are too familiar with the tragic toll of terrorism. One of the most fundamental of human rights is the right of all civilians to be free to live their lives without the continuous fear of terrorist attacks. Israeli citizens do not enjoy this basic right. They have been the target of countless indiscriminate terrorist attacks. The outbreak of the recent spate of violence, has claimed the lives of over two hundred Israeli innocent civilians, and has resulted in the wounding of thousands more, by indiscriminate terrorist attacks, including suicide bombings in the heart of Israel's cities, in coffee shops, market places, disco pubs and pizza restaurants.

Preventing terrorism effectively while ensuring that the basic human rights of even the most dangerous and brutal of criminals are protected, is clearly a demanding and complex task. Indeed, as a democracy, Israel must often fight with one hand tied behind its back.

As I will point out shortly, Israel has taken serious note of this Committee's recommendations with regard to its periodic reports.

In my opening statement, I wish to focus on some important developments that have taken place in Israel since the last session in which Israel's previous Report was considered by this Committee, in 1998.

I wish to focus on three developments that have taken place in Israel over the past two years:

1. The Israeli Supreme Court's landmark decision prohibiting the use of physical means in interrogations;
2. Israel's Supreme Court's decision concerning the Lebanese detainees held in Israel; and
3. Israel's full withdrawal from Lebanon to the international border as marked by the United Nations.

In September 1999 the Supreme Court, in an expanded panel of nine judges, unanimously repealed the former governmental guidelines regarding use of physical means during interrogations, which were previously criticized by this Committee. The Supreme Court stated that the ISA - the Israeli Security Agency (which is the English title for what was known as the General Security Service) has no authority under Israeli law to use physical force in its interrogations. As if to further heighten the dilemma, this ruling was given less than eighteen hours after two car bombs exploded in the heart of two northern cities - Haifa and Tiberias.

The Supreme Court's judgment displays full awareness of the unique security problem faced by the state of Israel since its establishment, and of the need to fight the constant and ruthless terrorism by which Israel is beset. In the words of the court: [and I quote]:

In the operative part of the judgment the court emphasized- and I quote again - that:

Following this most significant decision the Attorney-General convened a meeting with representatives of the ISA, with a view to implementing the courts ruling immediately. The attorney general also issued a directive concerning the guidelines that will apply in cases where the necessity provision of the criminal law will be invoked.

Israel's dilemma of confronting terror but at the same time respecting international human rights standards, has only intensified in the face of unprecedented violence and terror incidents that have claimed the lives of innocent Israeli civilians and injured thousands more Yet, at the same time, further restrictions on the use of force have been placed on the conduct of Israel's law-enforcement authorities. Indeed, it is during these difficult times, that the security forces must combat terrorism - in the words of the court - "with one hand tied behind their back". And it may well be said that Israeli security forces in fact do confront the horrible escalation of violence with one hand tied behind their back.

2. Israel's Supreme Court's decision concerning Lebanese detainees

Perhaps the distinguished chairman may recall that during the previous review of Israel's periodic report in 1998, concern was expressed regarding the holding of Lebanese detainees as "bargaining chips".

In April 2,000 the Supreme Court ruled that the Emergency Powers Act authorized the Minister of Defense to permit the administrative detention of any person only if such a detention is necessitated for national security needs. Hence, the court declared that the continued detention of Lebanese detainees held in Israel, which did not constitute a threat to national security as such, could not be authorized by the above-mentioned law

Immediately following this decision, all Lebanese detainees were released except for those who were terrorists, posing an immediate threat to Israel's security - all that despite the fact that in September 2,000 three Israeli soldiers and an Israeli citizen were abducted by the Hizbulla and held in captivity. Three of them have been presumed to be dead, while the fourth Israeli citizen is still missing. No information regarding the conditions of any of them has ever been given by Hizbulla, as is also the case regarding the missing Israeli navigator Ron Arad, and soldiers missing since the Lebanon war in 1982.

3. Israel's full withdrawal from Lebanon to the International border as marked by the United Nations.

Mr. Chairman, Members of this Committee,

On the 24^th of May 2000 all Israeli troops withdrew from South Lebanon to the international border as recognized by the United Nations, and as marked by its forces. This historic change was fully recognized and praised by the international community and the UN. Unfortunately, and contrary to international speculation, this did not stop the Hizbulla's rhetoric and deeds concerning their uncompromising intention to annihilate the State of Israel by launching terrorist attacks on Israel's northern border.

Despite Israel's full withdrawal from South Lebanon, we were surprised to find in many of the Shadow-reports submitted by NGO's to this Committee, several complaints against Israel regarding people arrested in Lebanon by Lebanese forces and militias.

We urge this distinguished Committee to give full account to the fact that that such complaints for alleged Israeli misconduct in Lebanon are not relevant.

Israel and the Committee

Mr. Chairman,

I wish to stress that the Israeli government considers its obligations under the Convention very seriously, and has always cooperated with this Committee. As I've said earlier, we hope during this session to conduct a candid and constructive dialogue with you.

In the past when Israel's views apparently differed from those of the Committee's, the Israeli Government had nevertheless taken careful note of this Committee's recommendations. The cases I mentioned before illustrate this point. Israel, although still struggling to ensure peaceful existence for its citizens in the hostile Middle East, is a member of the international community and fully committed to international norms.

Surprisingly perhaps to those unfamiliar with the politicized fora of the UN, we still find today, both in the shadow-reports and in various UN fora, the same criticism of Israel's conduct, as if nothing had changed on the ground.

A cursory example of this can be found in the observations of the Special Rapporteur on Torture, in his annual report for the year 2000. When speaking on Israel, the Special Rapporteur listed several complaints that he had received regarding allegations of torture. The reports states, and I quote:

Mr. Chairman,

With all due respect, we take exception to this proposition. Examination of any complaint must be done on a case-to-case basis, with no prejudice and biased presumptions. A serious examination can not solely rely on affidavits of Palestinian detainees. This is especially true considering the lack of any medical evidence in support of these allegations.

Without any intention to under-estimate complaints of alleged victims of ill-treatment, the Committee cannot ignore the tendency of some Palestinian detainees to make unfounded accusations, often motivated by political considerations. Misinformation is a well known tactic used worldwide.

Many detainees, in protecting themselves from revenge by their colleagues, deliberately exaggerate when describing their interrogations, in order to negate accusations of collaborating with the Israeli authorities or of betraying their brethren.

Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members,

Israel has, from the start, considered the work of this Committee to be professional and non-political. Thus, we urge this Committee to conduct a fair and candid assessment of Israel's report and consider the important, significant changes that have taken place since Israel's presentation of the previous Report.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to elaborate on two issues of particular concern to this Committee regarding Israel's previous periodical report.

Supervision and review of interrogative practices - Disciplinary and Criminal Proceedings and other Judicial Relief

The Government of Israel has recognized the importance of establishing systems for review of interrogation practices. A number of bodies are currently engaged in the investigation, examination and clarification of complaints against police officers, ISA personnel.

The actions of all law enforcement officials are subject to several overlapping legal institutions for review and sanctions. In general, each branch of the law enforcement authorities has disciplinary procedures which may be initiated by the person claiming a violation, by other entities, or by the authorities themselves; all public servants are subject to the provisions of the criminal law; and detainees or prisoners may apply directly to the courts for relief against the action or decision in question.

I wish to point out some of these institutions:

Israel Police

With regard to complaints against Policemen - Criminal investigations against police officers may be initiated by a complaint filed to the Department for Investigation of Police Personnel (DIPP) in the Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for most criminal investigations against police officers.

Disciplinary proceedings against police officers are referred to a disciplinary tribunal, composed of either a single judge or a three-judge panel, depending on the gravity of the violation

ISA

With regard to ISA investigators - Since 1994 responsibility for claims of maltreatment by ISA interrogators, has also been transferred to the Department for Investigation of Police Personnel - DIPP, under the direct supervision of the State Attorney.

Any person under interrogation is entitled to file a complaint against his interrogators. Such complaints are dealt with by an investigating body, under the professional direct supervision of the Ministry of Justice.

Furthermore, the State Comptroller's Office has examined the ISA investigator's unit in the past. The State Comptroller's findings are submitted to a special subcommittee of the Knesset State Comptroller Committee. In the past the ISA Comptroller was instructed to examine all claims of torture or maltreatment during interrogation. The comptroller carried out this review function, initiating disciplinary or legal action against interrogators in cases where they had been found to have deviated from the legal guidelines.

Judicial Review

All complaints of alleged ill treatment during investigation may be challenged directly before the Supreme Court, sitting as a High Court of Justice. Any person feeling that he or she has been wronged -- not only the detainee himself or his family, but, under the extremely flexible rules of standing in Israeli law, also virtually any person or group who claims an interest in the legal or humanitarian issues involved -- may have his or her petition heard by the High Court of Justice within 48 hours of being filed.

In our previous presentations before this Committee, we have explained the nature of the procedure for real-time judicial review of interrogation procedures, which allowed all detainees who deemed that they had not been properly treated during an interrogation, to submit a petition directly and immediately to Israel's Supreme Court sitting as a High Court of Justice. This right applies to all persons, whether or not Israeli citizens, including residents of the territories. In this respect, Israel is the only country in the world that has granted similar access, to its highest court, to non-citizens petitioning against administrative measures. No similar remedy apparently exists in any other country. It is somewhat surprising that this Committee has not yet considered making reference to this unique aspect and positive aspect in its conclusions as one of the positive developments which have occurred.

Official Commission of Inquiry into the October 2000 Events

Mr. Chairman, another significant inquiry mechanism that I wish to point out is the establishment by the Israeli government of the State Commission of Inquiry, led by Supreme Court Justice Theodor Or appointed to conduct the investigation regarding the clashes between security forces and rioters at the end of September 2000 that resulted in the death of Thirteen Israeli Arabs, and one Israeli Jew.

Definitions under the Convention

Mr. Chairman,

I wish to end this statement with a brief comment on the definitions set out in the Convention against Torture.

Today, when the world is engaged in an international campaign against terror, a campaign involving the use of force, there is special resonance to the work of this Committee in precisely defining the provisions of the Convention against Torture.

The definition of Torture as defined in section 2 of the convention is an absolute one.

The Israeli position, as we have stated before this Committee in the past, has always maintained that the interrogation procedures used by the ISA, to prevent acts of terrorism in Israel, do not constitute torture as defined by Article 1 of the Convention. Nor do they constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, within the meaning of article 16. This position is derived from a legal interpretation of the Convention. If the Committee feels otherwise, then an in-depth analysis of the meaning of the terms used in the Convention and of the intentions of the States that had drafted it, as well as of the scope of articles 1 and 16, is required.

The conclusions and recommendations formulated by the Committee following its consideration of Israel's previous report, suggest that a limited analysis was, in fact, made of Israel's position on this point. The Committee's conclusions relied on Israel's admission of the use of the specific techniques in question before the Committee. The Committee rejected the assertion that these techniques were "not severe" since no details were given by Israel for security reasons. The Committee therefore concluded that Israel had not satisfied the burden of justifying such conduct, and emphasized that this was particularly so when reliable evidence, from detainees and independent medical evidence had not been made available for the Committee's consideration.

As these specific techniques are no longer relevant following the Israeli Supreme Court decision, we do not wish to continue this discussion, and we urge the Committee to acknowledge that careful reading of Article 2 of the Convention clearly suggests that pain and suffering, in themselves, do not necessarily constitute Torture.

Any interpretation of interrogation procedures, by definition, must take into account the restrictive scope of the prohibition set out in Article 1. This is particularly so since that definition included an important specific criterion, that of the severity of the pain or suffering inflicted on a person. It is Israel's position and understanding that every act or measure of alleged misconduct, should be examined on its own merits and in relation to its specific circumstances. A sweeping generalized interpretation would not meet the requirements of the Convention against Torture. This observation applies, mutatis mutandis, to the implementation of Article 16. As this Committee is not a political organ of the United Nations, but rather a specialized expert forum whose competence is recognized in a specific field, we have urged in the past that the Committee avoid taking any generalized positions.

Mr. Chairman,

I wish to reiterate that the prohibition of torture constitutes an integral part of Israeli law and jurisprudence. Accordingly, Israeli officials who conduct interrogations - are not authorized, to use torture, even in cases where the use of such procedures might prevent terrible attacks. The use of cruel, inhuman or degrading procedures is likewise prohibited during interrogations. Israel has never claimed that the struggle against terrorism constituted an exceptional circumstance that justified the use of torture.

Today, when there is international consensus that combating terrorism requires the use of force, it is the role of this Committee, perhaps more than before, to ensure that any use of such force will not be in breach of the Convention Against Torture.

Mr. Chairman,

Under Israeli law as was pointed-out by the Supreme Court, in the appropriate circumstances, ISA investigators may avail themselves of the "necessity" defense, if criminally indicted. In the words of the court:

According to the court: [and I quote again]

The principal guiding us is an ancient one which was articulated some 2,000 years ago by Jewish sages , and served as one of the foundations of liberal humanistic philosophy as we know it today: It reads as follows:

With regard to this we wish to emphasize:

The law regarding Israeli police interrogations also governs ISA conduct, and the restrictions applicable to the police investigations are equally applicable to ISA investigations.

The use of force during interrogation in Israel - hence - is exceptional and prompted only by necessity, in isolated cases. It must be noted though that any reasonable investigation is likely to cause discomfort; It may also sometimes result in insufficient sleep and the conditions under which it is conducted risk being unpleasant.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it should be remembered that all Israel's previous periodic Reports, together with the statements of the Israeli delegation before this Committee, should be considered as an integral whole. We hope that the members of the Committee will give due consideration to all those elements and will focus on the legal and practical dilemma faced by Israel in its implementation of the Convention. We are confident that an exchange of views with the Committee and a constructive analysis conducted by the Committee, in good faith, will assist the Israeli authorities in their efforts to achieve the goals of the Convention.