Violence against Minors in Police Detention
Information Sheet, Update June-July 1990
PREFACE
POLICE VIOLENCE AGAINST MINORS - PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS
INTRODUCTION
THE LEGAL PERSPECTIVE
CONDITIONS OF IMPRISONMENT
INTERROGATIONS
INVESTIGATIONS OF COMPLAINTS OF POLICE VIOLENCE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
POLICE RESPONSE
INTIFADA FATALITIES – TOTALS
B'Tselem, the IsraeliInformationCenter for Human Rights in the OccupiedTerritories, was founded in February 1989 by a group of lawyers, intellectuals,journalists, and Members of Knesset.
The objective of B'Tselem is to document and to bring to the attention of policymakers and the general public, violations of human rights in the territories.
B'Tselem's data are based on fieldwork, independent investigations, and officialIsraeli sources, as well as on the data of Palestinian sources, especially humanrights groups such as PHRIC and al-Haq.
Edited by Na'ama Yashuvi
English by Jessica Bonn, Melissa Crow, Eddie Feld, and Isabel Kershner.
B'Tselem would like to thank Caroline Borup-Jorgensen for editing the English Internet version of the report.
ISSN 0792-4003
PREFACE
IT IS A FACT THAT CHILDREN AND YOUTHS ARE PLAYING AN ACTIVE ROLEIN THE INTIFADA. STRICT ADHERENCE TO MINIMAL STANDARDS OF THE RULE OF LAW IS PARTICULARLY VITAL WHERE THE TREATMENT OF MINORS ISCONCERNED. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAFEGUARD THESE MINIMAL STANDARDSOF THE RULE OF LAW WITHOUT PUBLIC SUPERVISION. THE RELEVANTAUTHORITIES DO NOT ALWAYS UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE TRUTH; THEIRREBUTTAL OF REQUESTS TO INSPECT PRISONS AND DETENTION CENTERS, ANDOF LEGITIMATE PUBLIC SCRUTINY, INVITE SUSPICION AND A LACK OFCONFIDENCE, AND GIVE A CERTAIN LEGITIMACY TO ACTIONS WHICH AREBOTH PROHIBITED AND DANGEROUS.
By Knesset Member Amnon Rubinstein
The Intifada is a difficult and critical test of the rule of lawin Israel. Those who seek to uphold this standard are todaysatisfied just to preserve its very foundations.
In a time of national emergency and insurrection it is impossibleto preserve the true spirit of the rule of law in its fullhumanist, liberal and democratic tradition. The loyal allies ofthis rule are fighting on one main front. They demand that at thevery least, the enactment of the emergency powers, whichcontradict the very spirit of the rule of law, be carried out in acontrolled manner, and under strict supervision and publicscrutiny. We must ensure that these tools are employed withreason and only where absolutely necessary in order to maintainlaw and order, until such a time, and we hope that day is near,when there will be a political solution enabling us and thePalestinians to co-exist in peace and security.
Strict adherence to minimal standards of the rule of law isparticularly vital where the treatment of minors is concerned. Itis a fact that children and youths take an active part in theIntifada in the occupied territories and in Israel proper, wherethey participate in a variety of forms of disturbances. Thesechildren and youths are detained, tried and sent to prison, anddespite all the pain and unpleasantness that this processinvolves, the police and security authorities have no alternativebut to carry it through. The responsibility for this state ofaffairs must rest first and foremost with those who send thechildren out into violent confrontations with IDF soldiers. Butit falls to us and the security authorities to maintain minimumstandards of decency: not to harm minors whose involvement indisturbances is in any doubt, to keep minors who have beendetained or sentenced in humane prison conditions, and to preventthe use of violence or humiliation, which may lead to injustice,and cause irreparable damage.
It is impossible to maintain these minimal standards required bythe rule of law without trustworthy public supervision of thetreatment of minors in detention and the conditions of theirimprisonment. Unfortunately, the relevant authorities do notalways understand this simple truth. When they shun requests forthe inspection and legitimate public supervision of prisons anddetention centers, they invite suspicion and lack of confidence,and thereby condone actions which are both prohibited anddangerous.
To my dismay, I too have experienced [receiving] an uncalled forand dangerous refusal for [permission to conduct] a legitimatereview and inspection of the situation. In January of this year,I applied to the then Minister of Police, Mr. Haim Bar-Lev, afterreceiving complaints that minors were detained at the RussianCompound in conditions which did not meet even the most basicstandards of human rights. I requested permission to visit thedetention center. My application was denied for no apparentreason. Even the support I received from the Chairman of theKnesset did not help. Eventually, as a compromise, the Ministerof Police agreed that the Knesset Committee for Internal Affairscould visit the detention center.
B'Tselem's report invokes the security authorities to takeimmediate action in order to preserve the accepted minimalstandards. Even under the circumstances of the Intifada, it isunthinkable that minors should be held in such conditions as aredetailed in this report.
POLICE VIOLENCE AGAINST MINORS - PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS
THE MOST DAMAGING AND DANGEROUS EFFECT OF POLICEVIOLENCEFALLSNOT ON THE MINORS, NOR ON THE POLICE, BUT ON US, THOSE WHO PREFERNOT TO KNOW.
By Professor Charlie Greenbaum
(Department of Psychology, The HebrewUniversity)
Three conclusions can clearly be drawn from this grave report onviolence against minors: illegal violence against minors occurson a large scale, although it is not possible to assess the scopeof it accurately; there is a concerted effort on the part of thepolice to block attempts to check complaints or to conduct visits;and there is no guarantee that the situation will change in theforeseeable future.
First of all, it should be established that the behavior of thepolice presented in this report is both unethical and illegal. Even if this violence did not result in psychological problems, itwould be incumbent on any human being with even the most basicsense of morality to condemn such actions.
The consequences of police violence fit into several differentcategories: the immediate effect on the victim is that of trauma,characterized by fears, an exaggerated reaction to anycircumstance reminiscent of the conditions suffered duringdetention and sometimes, a loss of the ability to function. Anadditional effect is that of a sense of guilt, especially if theminor feels that he turned somebody else in, or admitted to doingthings he never did. In the longer term, post-traumatic stressmay set in; this condition incorporates some of the preliminarysigns of stress, but can linger for years afterward. Anotherconsequence is hatred toward the authorities and toward thenation they represent. We must take into account that manydetainees are innocent of any crime but are released only after avery trying period of confinement; thus the victimized minor willinfer that there is no advantage to behaving as a "good" child,since both the guilty and the innocent are punished. The circleof hatred spreads out and encompasses the friends and family, sothat illegal violence has a destructive influence both on theindividual and society at large. Therefore, even if minorsrecover from the effects of the violence, as most of them do, thedamage lingers on. Others, who do not recover, will be scarredfor the rest of their lives.
Another important issue is the question of the effects of theviolence on the interrogators and the policemen themselves. Thereare several pressures at work, influencing their behavior: thedesire to succeed as an interrogator, whatever the price toothers; the fear of letting down their self-image as the policemen("so they will not think they can play around with us"); or theneed to release acute feelings of frustration and otheroverwhelming emotions. In all these manifestations, the policeact out the repressed desires of society at large, doing our dirtywork, while we are free to attend festivals.
Finally, we have to ask ourselves about the effect of policeviolence on us, Israeli society at large. We are equipped withplenty of defense mechanisms which are supposed to prevent us fromthinking about or getting involved in what is going on. We willmention three of them here. First, there is "habituation," orgetting used to hearing the same thing over and over. How many ofus really flinch when we read of yet another child killed orinjured? After two and a half years of such items appearing inthe papers, they fail to have any emotional effect on us. Thenthere is the defense mechanism of justification, orrationalization, where people say things like: "Well, childrenwho throw stones and get involved in violence deserve what they get." As for dealing with the issue of police violence, there isan even simpler device: denial. What I do not know about doesn'texist. There is no reason why we have to imagine what it is likefor a young boy to be locked up in a "grave" 60 cm. high and 80cm. wide, as described in the report, or to imagine how the childwho has suffered humiliation and beatings feels. Why? Because itsimply did not happen. The most serious and dangerous effect,then, is not on the minors themselves, nor on the police, but onus, those who do not want to know.
The solutions are straightforward: to put a stop to violenceduring interrogation and detention; to take punitive measuresagainst all those who violate the law even if they are policeofficials; to establish routine external inquiries; and toprovide services for minors from the occupied territories such asparole officers, which do not exist at present. However, becauseof the psychological obstacles inherent in the system, it will bevery difficult to implement any of these solutions.
INTRODUCTION
THIS REPORT DEALS WITH MINORS FROM EAST JERUSALEM WHO ARE BEING HELD IN TWO POLICE JAILS IN JERUSALEM, THE RUSSIAN COMPOUND, AND THE KISHLE POLICE STATION IN THE OLDCITY. B'TSELEM HAS GATHERED EXTENSIVE INFORMATION ON THE BEHAVIOR TOWARD YOUNGSTERS DETAINEDIN THE JAIL IN THE RUSSIAN COMPOUND, ON VIOLENCE AND HUMILIATIONOF THE CHILDREN ON THE PART OF POLICE AND GENERAL SECURITY SERVICE(SHIN BET) INVESTIGATORS AND ON CONDITIONS OF IMPRISONMENT WHICHDO NOT MEET MINIMAL STANDARDS OF HUMANE IMPRISONMENT.
On the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the IDF is the authorityresponsible for keeping order. In East Jerusalem, though, thepolice are responsible since Israeli law is valid there, andresidents retain Israeli identity cards. The police carry outactions in Jerusalem that the IDF performs in the West Bank andGaza, such as the arrest of individuals suspected of "security"violations. The jail in the Russian Compound holds most of theIntifada prisoners from Jerusalem and nearby villages, at leastduring the initial period of their imprisonment. Also held at theRussian Compound are Jewish prisoners and prisoners from theoccupied territories. It should be noted that according to the(Israeli) law, prisoners from the territories who are detainedinside Israel are to be treated in the same manner as residents ofIsrael proper.
In December 1989, the Women's Organization for PoliticalPrisoners (WOFPP) published a report on violence to female prisoners.[1] Much of the testimony in the report relates tooccurrences in the Russian Compound. The evidence was reportedwidely in the press. The police's response limited itself to alaconic announcement by Chief Inspector Uzi Sanduri, spokespersonfor the Southern District and Jerusalem Police.[2] ChiefInspector Sanduri, reported that "all the complaints which havereached the police are being investigated and handled by theofficer in charge of public complaints." Chief Sanduri furtherestablished that "the jail is under continuous supervision by
outside bodies, in addition to internal inspections conducted bythe police, and that all reports have noted the high level ofprison maintenance, and food and medical care received by theprisoners." In the announcement of the police spokesperson, therewas no response to the charges of violence against prisoners, norwas there a specific reply to the complaints raised by therepresentatives of WOFPP.
In January, 1989, after receiving information from B'Tselemregarding conditions of detention in the Russian Compound, KnessetMember Amnon Rubinstein (Shinui) requested permission from the Minister of Police, Hayim Bar-Lev (Labor), to visit the facilityin order to investigate this matter. The Minister of Policedenied his request, but, one month later, permitted a visit thereby the Knesset Committee for Internal Affairs. At the end of thetour, which took place on February 26, 1990, acting Chairman ofthe committee, Knesset Member Ovadiah Eli (Likud), said: "Adifficult and gloomy picture has emerged here. Prisoners' rightsare being violated. The insufferable conditions which currently prevail are unacceptable."[3]
B'Tselem's request to the then Inspector General David Kraus forpermission to visit the jail in the Russian Compound was denied. Therefore, we have drawn on a report by the Israeli branch ofDefense Children International (DCI), which was published not longago, after a visit to the site by Dr. Menahem Horowitz, ProfessorLeslie Seba, and Mr. Philip Veerman, DCI representatives.[4] Wehave also consulted numerous testimonies gathered over the pastyear by "The Organization for Aid to Imprisoned Minors", regardingdetention conditions in the Russian Compound and violence againstPalestinian prisoners, particularly against imprisoned minorsduring their arrests and interrogations.
It is extraordinarily difficult to address our topic: thepublication of testimonies of minors who suffered from violenceand humiliation during imprisonment (some of whom are still beingheld) could possibly cause these individuals harm. Most of theyoungsters with whom we spoke did not see any reason to file acomplaint regarding the treatment they received at the hands ofpolice and members of the General Security Service (Shin Bet). They did not believe that their complaint would be thoroughlyinvestigated and feared that the very act of issuing a complaintwould harm them. The parents of these minors tended in most casesto protect them and to prefer forgoing the complaint process inorder not to cause further suffering to their children. ThePolice Inspector General informed us that he would not investigatethe general charges we brought him, unless an official complaintwas submitted. The essential facts appearing in this report areincluded in the complaint B'Tselem submitted to the PoliceInspector General, along with affidavits taken by lawyers on ourbehalf. The law forbids publication of the names of minorsinvolved in criminal acts; therefore we have only used initialsin this report. The age indicated is that of the minor at thetime of the arrest. The full names of those who gave affidavits were sent to the Police Inspector General. The material at handis not based on a representative sample, but there is reason to believe that these practices are prevalent, and should becarefully investigated. In preparing this report we relied ontestimonies gathered by members of the Organization for Aid toImprisoned Minors, and on depositions gathered by our own lawyers. We also met with senior officials from the Israeli National Police to present the essential complaints garnered from thesetestimonies and hear the police's reactions.
DETENTION OF MINORS FROM EAST JERUSALEM
IN THE RUSSIAN COMPOUND AND IN THE
KISHLE POLICE STATION
ISRAELI NATIONAL POLICE STATISTICS
Table 1: 1989
Month / Total Minors Detained / Total AccusedJanuary / 130 / 83
February / 99 / 36
March / 105 / 64
April / 128 / 37
May / 129 / 62
June / 108 / 43
July / 50 / 24
August / 75 / 38
September / 68 / 25
October / 156 / 35
November / 154 / 67
December / 125 / 85
Total / 1307 / 599
Table 2: 1990
Month / Total Minors Detained / Total Accused / Division of Detainees According to Year of Birth1972 / 1973 / 1974 / 1975 / 1976 / 1977
January / 53 / 50 / 9 / 16 / 5 / 12 / 10 / 1
February / 77 / 39 / 7 / 17 / 20 / 27 / 4 / 2
March / 104 / 50 / 13 / 26 / 28 / 23 / 14 / -
April / 65 / 52 / 16 / 13 / 13 / 16 / 7 / -
May / 138 / 43 / 28 / 33 / 29 / 24 / 18 / 6
Total / 437 / 234 / 73 / 105 / 95 / 102 / 53 / 9
THE LEGAL PERSPECTIVE
THE PENAL LAW (1977), IMPOSES A PUNISHMENT OF THREE YEARS'IMPRISONMENT ON A CIVIL SERVANT WHO USES PRESSURE TO FORCE ANINDIVIDUAL TO CONFESS TO A CRIME OR TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT ACRIME. SOMEONE WHO ATTACKS A MINOR AND CAUSES HIM INJURY, WHETHERPHYSICAL OR MENTAL, MAY BE IMPRISONED FOR UP TO FIVE YEARS.
Imprisonment of Minors
The relevant statute regarding the imprisonment of minors is theYouth (Trial, Punishment and Modes of Treatment) Law (1971). TheYouth Law specifies proper police behavior towards minors withregard to the time of detention, their transportation, therelationship with the parole services (which operate out of theOffice of Labor and Social Services), juvenile court, punishment,and the modes of treatment.
The age for criminal responsibility is 12, and the law forbidsimprisoning minors under this age. It should be noted that minorsunder the age of 16 do not have identity cards; therefore, thereare likely to be difficulties in determining their ages andfulfilling the instructions of the law.
The Youth Law applies to minors between the ages 12 and 18. Between the ages of 12 and 14, they may be arrested upon signedorder of a police officer for up to 12 hours; (under certaincircumstances this time frame may be doubled, if the reasons havebeen specified and signed by the officer in charge of the givenpolice station). A judge may lengthen the term of imprisonmentten days at a time, up to 30 days. After 30 days, the term ofimprisonment can be lengthened only through an order of theAttorney General. Minors between the ages of 14 and 18 may bearrested for 24 hours (this period, too, can be doubled under theconditions discussed above) and a judge can extend theimprisonment for ten-day periods.
According to the law, minors and adults must be detainedseparately. Transportation of minors to jail, and between jailand court must also be conducted separately from adults. Thepolice's internal instructions direct that the minors should betransported in civilian vehicles, in order to protect them frompublic disclosure.
The cases of minors are adjudicated by a magistrate who is appointedespecially for juvenile cases. The law dictates that minors'hearings be conducted behind closed doors. The decision to extendthe term of a minor's imprisonment is made by any judge on duty,and not necessarily by a juvenile court judge.
The police agency responsible for the arrest of minors is theMinors' Division. Police in the Minors' Division take aspecial, day-long training course,which is supposed to prepare them to work with minors. InJerusalem, though, the Minors' Division deals only with criminaldefendants (Jews and non-Jews alike). Crimes defined as"national," are handled by the Minorities' Division, under thejurisdiction of the Detective and Information Bureau.[5] There isno police agency responsible exclusively for the treatment ofminors in the Minorities' Division.