הוועד הציבורי נגד עינויים בישראל

The Public Committee against Torture in Israel (PCATI), Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, B'Tselem-The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, Hamoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual and Adalah-The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel filed a petition to the High court of Justice against the General Security Service (GSS), the Israel Police and the Attorney General demanding that the use of family members as means of exhorting pressure on suspects during interrogations by state authorities be absolutely prohibited (case # 3533/08) . The petition was submitted by Attorney Smadar Ben-Natan and PCATI Attorney Eliahu Abram on behalf of six family members of interrogees and the five above mentioned human rights organizations.

The organizations demand that the Court order the cessation of the use of methods amounting to psychological torture which present a “charade” before suspects that implies that their confession during interrogation will lead to the release or the improvement of the conditions of detention of members of their families, or that an innocent family member has been or is about to be arrested if they do not confess.

The use of family members in police and GSS interrogations, as demonstrated by the cases described in the petition, causes severe emotional pressure, tantamount to psychological torture, not only to the detainee himself but also to members of his family who, without their knowledge or free consent, have been turned into an instrument in the interrogation of their loved one.

Update: on Septenber 9, 2009 The High Court of Justice deliberated on the petition, ruling that the the police and GSS are not allowed to employ threats, false promises and false presentations relating to the welfare of relatives of interrogees.  The Justices, Dorit Beinish, Edna Arbel and Saleem Jubaran welcomed the State's report concerning the clarification of the directives given to GSS interrogators but did not demand to see them or to monitor their implementation. In spite of the above the Court decided to reject the petition while noting the fact that due to it the directives had been clarified.

For further information.