DOCSLIB.ORG

The Use of Administrative Detention in the 2003 Armenian Presidential Election

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Use of Administrative Detention in the 2003 Armenian Presidential Election AN IMITATION OF LAW: The Use of Administrative Detention in the 2003 Armenian Presidential Election Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper May 23, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Administrative Arrest and Detention in Theory and Practice................................................................. 3 The legal and procedural framework............................................................................................... 3 Departures from the framework in practice...................................................................................... 4 Growing political use of administrative detention since the mid-1990s .............................................. 5 The 2003 presidential election ........................................................................................................ 6 Abuse of Administrative Arrest in the 2003 Presidential Election ......................................................... 7 The opposition demonstrations of February to April 2003 ................................................................ 7 Rendering opposition rallies illegal................................................................................................. 7 A “threat to state order”........................................................................................................... 7 “Unauthorized” rallies and marches........................................................................................... 8 Arrests of rally participants in lieu of leaders............................................................................. 9 Rally-goers characterized as anti-social, criminal hooligans...................................................... 10 The campaign of arrests ............................................................................................................... 10 February 21-27: the first wave of arrests................................................................................... 10 March 1-17: conditional releases, continuing pressure............................................................... 11 March 18-22: the second wave of arrests.................................................................................. 12 April 7-9: around the presidential inauguration ......................................................................... 13 Due process violations in administrative offenses proceedings........................................................ 13 Incommunicado preliminary detention..................................................................................... 13 Flawed court hearings ............................................................................................................. 15 Barriers to appeal.................................................................................................................... 17 Challenges from authoritative bodies to the abuse of administrative detention ................................. 19 The Code of Administrative Offenses and Armenia’s international human rights commitments ... 19 Challenges and justifications from Armenian higher judicial authorities..................................... 20 Summary Since the mid-1990s, Armenian authorities have used administrative detention as a tool of repression, locking up protesters and activists at times of political tension. The 2003 presidential election and its aftermath mark the most sustained, extensive abuses in the last seven years. In February and March 2003, the police used the Code of Administrative Offenses, which sets out penalties for public order misdemeanors, to lock up dozens of opposition activists and supporters for periods of up to fifteen days. The police and courts applied the Code arbitrarily, claiming that opposition rallies and marches were “threats to public order” or “unauthorized,” and that any of the tens of thousands of participants could be punished. The arrests disrupted the opposition candidate’s campaign, and intimidated opposition supporters engaged in peacefully protesting the election result. They appeared aimed at stifling public criticism of the conduct of the vote—which was won by incumbent President Robert Kocharian, amid serious claims of election fraud. The abuses stem both from ambiguities in the Code itself and from the actions of police and courts, which routinely ignore Code provisions that provide protections for defendants. The Code contains a number of vague terms and at times contradictory provisions that invite inconsistent application. Police officials and other authorities, for their part, often erroneously claim that those held on administrative offenses do not have the same rights as those charged under the criminal code. They routinely hold cursory court hearings, closed to the public, deny defendants access to legal counsel, and do not allow defendants any opportunity to call witnesses in their defense. These actions violate defendants’ rights, established in the Code and in international human rights law, to a public trial, to legal counsel, to know the charges against them, and to call witnesses in their defense.1 Procedural violations, and a short-circuiting of the judicial process appear to be the norm in police and court application of administrative detention.2 Since independence in 1991, Armenia has enacted a number of legal reforms to protect due process rights. Failure to reform the Soviet-era administrative detention system to bring it into accord with prevailing international norms, however, is subverting this progress. This paper describes Armenia’s administrative detention system, documents its use against opposition supporters, and details due process violations in its implementation. Human Rights Watch calls on the Armenian government to ensure that law enforcement and judicial authorities do not arbitrarily detain and intimidate political activists in the forthcoming parliamentary elections and constitutional referendum, scheduled for May 25. Human Rights Watch calls on the international community to make reform of the system of administrative detention a part of its relationship with the government of Armenia. Human Rights Watch also urges the Armenian government to take serious measures to eradicate the abuse of administrative detention. Such measures should include: • Reform of the administrative courts to ensure their genuine independence from the law enforcement agencies and the executive, and to ensure that they protect due process guarantees 1 See Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 2 Administrative detention is customarily understood to mean detention ordered by a non-judicial body. However, in this case the detention is determined by a court. The same due process guarantees afforded criminal defendants under Article 14 of the ICCPR and Article 6 of ECHR also apply in such cases. Although the Armenian practice in most respects conforms to judicially determined detention, for the sake of simplicity and clarity we shall continue to refer to it as administrative detention throughout this document. 2 contained in the Code of Administrative Offenses (or its successor law), the Constitution, and Armenia’s international human rights obligations. • Reform of the Code of Administrative Offenses to make it fully consistent with the framework of current Armenian law, removing anachronisms, and clearly relating the substance of administrative offenses to existing laws or normative acts. This would reduce opportunities for arbitrariness in determining what constitute administrative offenses. • Legal reform to ensure that the police may not use administrative arrest as a license for arbitrary and incommunicado detention. Its time limit should be set clearly at three hours, as certain language in the Code stipulates, rather than being open-ended, as other Code language makes possible. The obligation for police to maintain a transparent system of registering all detainees should be legislated unambiguously, and vigorously enforced. Police officers who fail to do so should be held accountable. • Introduction of a clear right to appeal judicial decisions regarding “administrative” detention, and the removal of practical barriers to its realization. A procedure for the conduct of appeal hearings should be introduced, and a right of further appeal to the Court of Cassation should be introduced, as provided for in the civil and criminal procedure codes. The right of appeal must in practice protect the individual's interest in liberty, in that the defendant may both immediately challenge detention and have a genuine opportunity to secure conditional release pending the final decision of the appeal. • Legislation or normative acts regulating public demonstrations and marches should be introduced. Any such law should set out a procedure for challenging denial of permission. Administrative Arrest and Detention in Theory and Practice The legal and procedural framework The 1988 Republic of Armenia Code of Administrative Offenses governs minor public order offenses that do not accrue a criminal record. It retains many references to obsolete Soviet laws and institutions, and has some internal inconsistencies, but does set out key due process guarantees for defendants. However, these do not include a clear right of appeal, and they are often couched
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Armenia Page 1 of 13
    Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Armenia Page 1 of 13 Armenia Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2006 Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor March 6, 2007 Armenia, with a population of approximately 3.2 million, is a republic. The constitution provides for a popularly elected president (Robert Kocharian) and a unicameral legislature (National Assembly). A constitutional referendum in 2005 and presidential and National Assembly elections in 2003 were seriously flawed and did not meet international standards. The country has a multiparty political system. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces; members of the security forces committed a number of human rights abuses. The government's human rights record remained poor, and serious problems remained. Citizens were not able freely to change their government; authorities beat pretrial detainees; the national security service and the national police force acted with impunity; authorities engaged in arbitrary arrest and detention; prison conditions were cramped and unhealthy, although slowly improving; authorities imposed restrictions on citizens' privacy, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. Journalists practiced self-censorship, and the government and laws restricted religious freedom. Violence against women and spousal abuse were problems, as were trafficking in persons, discrimination against persons with disabilities, and societal harassment of homosexuals. There were reports of forced labor. There were some improvements during the year. The implementation of constitutional reforms ratified in 2005 led to some increase in judicial independence and for the first time gave citizens direct access to the Constitutional Court. Penalties for trafficking were toughened and a court for the first time imposed financial, as well as criminal, penalties on traffickers.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE 59 Session 7 November to 7 December 2016 PARTNERSHIP for OPEN SOCIETY INITIATIVE's J
    UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE 59th Session 7 November to 7 December 2016 PARTNERSHIP FOR OPEN SOCIETY INITIATIVE’S JOINT SUBMISSION TO THE COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE ON THE FOURTH PERIODIC REPORT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OF PUNISHMENT October 17, 2016, Yerevan, Armenia Hereby, the Partnership for Open Society Initiative,1 representing more than 60 civil society organizations, presents a joint submission prepared by the following civil society organizations, public monitoring groups, human rights lawyers and attorneys: 1. Coalition to Stop Violence Against Women; 2. Center for Rights Development NGO; 3. Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression; 4. Foundation Against the Violation of Law NGO; 5. Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly–Vanadzor; 6. Helsinki Committee of Armenia Human Rights Defender NGO; 7. Journalists' Club Asparez; 8. Open Society Foundations – Armenia; 9. Protection of Rights without Borders NGO; 10. Rule of Law Human Rights NGO; 11. Group of Public Monitors Implementing Supervision over the Criminal-Executive Institutions and Bodies of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia; 12. Public Monitoring Group at the Detention Facilities of the Police of the Republic of Armenia; 13. Davit Khachaturyan, Justice Group, Open Society-Foundations-Armenia, Expert, Ph.D; 14. Inessa Petrosyan, Attorney; 15. Tigran Hayrapetyan, Attorney; 16. Tigran Safaryan, Attorney; 17. Vahe Grigoryan, Attorney, Legal Consultant at EHRAC (Middlesex University). Contacts Persons David Amiryan Karine Ghazaryan Open Society Foundations-Armenia Open Society Foundations-Armenia Deputy Director for Programs Civil Society Program Coordinator E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] 1 http://www.partnership.am/en/index 1 Contents INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • List of Issues Prepared by the Committee to Be Considered During the Examination of the Third Periodic Report of Armenia (CAT/C/ARM/3)
    United Nations CAT/C/ARM/Q/3/Add.1 Convention against Torture Distr.: General 10 April 2012 and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment English only or Punishment Committee against Torture Forty-eighth session 7 May–1 June 2012 List of issues prepared by the Committee to be considered during the examination of the third periodic report of Armenia (CAT/C/ARM/3) Addendum Written replies from the Government of the Armenia to the list of issues (CAT/C/ARM/Q/3)* [28 March 2012] * In accordance with the information transmitted to States parties regarding the processing of their reports, the present document was not formally edited before being sent to the United Nations translation services. GE.12- CAT/C/ARM/Q/3/Add.1 Articles 1 and 4 1. The Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia is recently amended with the purpose to bring it in line with the Convention, in particular all the definitions and phrases used in the Convention were included in the articles of torture. All the articles containing the torture elements were amended. The English version of the amendments will be presented as soon as possible. 2. There have been no officials convicted of tortures against those having committed crimes against the person. 3. Two (2) cases were reviewed under Article 119 ("Torture") of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia in 2008. With respect to one of them - G. Alaverdyan’s case - the Court of First Instance delivered a criminal judgment on 2 December 2008 on finding the defendant guilty of committing a crime envisaged under Article 119(2)(3) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia and imposed a punishment in the form of imprisonment for the term of 3 (three) years.
    [Show full text]
  • Imprisonment and the Separation of Judicial Power: a Defence of a Categorical Immunity from Non-Criminal Detention
    IMPRISONMENT AND THE SEPARATION OF JUDICIAL POWER: A DEFENCE OF A CATEGORICAL IMMUNITY FROM NON-CRIMINAL DETENTION J EFFREY S TEVEN G ORDON* [e fundamental principle that no person may be deprived of liberty without criminal conviction has deteriorated. Despite a robust assertion of the principle by Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ in Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration, subsequent jurisprudence has eroded it and revealed stark division amongst the Justices of the High Court. is article clarifies the contours of the disagreement and defends the proposition that, subject to a limited number of categorical exceptions, ch III of the Constitution permits the involuntary detention of a person in custody only as a consequential step in the adjudication of the criminal guilt of that person for past acts. is article proposes a methodology for creating new categories of permitted non-criminal detention and applies that methodology to test the constitutionality of the interim control orders considered in omas v Mowbray.] C ONTENTS I Introduction ............................................................................................................... 42 II Legislative Power, Judicial Power and Imprisonment .......................................... 46 A From Which Section Does the So-Called ‘Constitutional Immunity’ from Executive Detention Originate? ........................................................ 51 1 Does the Legislative Power of the Commonwealth Conferred by Section 51 Extend to Authorising Imprisonment Generally? ............................................................... 52 2 Does Chapter III Have Any Operation When Parliament Enacts a Law Authorising Imprisonment? ................................... 55 * BSc (Adv) (Hons), LLB (Hons) (Syd), LLM (Columbia). Sincerest thanks to Peter Gerangelos for reading a dra, for generous advice, and for sparking my interest during his fascinating course on Advanced Constitutional Law at the University of Sydney.
    [Show full text]
  • Armenia Page 1 of 18
    Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Armenia Page 1 of 18 Armenia Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2007 Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor March 11, 2008 Armenia is a constitutional republic with a population of approximately 3.2 million. The constitution provides for an elected president and a unicameral legislature (the National Assembly). The May parliamentary elections failed to fully meet international standards due to procedural flaws, despite improvements over past elections. The country has a multiparty political system. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces, although some members of the security forces committed human rights abuses. The government's human rights record remained poor, and serious problems remained. Citizens were not able to freely change their government; authorities beat pretrial detainees; the National Security Service (NSS) and the national police force acted with impunity; authorities engaged in arbitrary arrest and detention; prison conditions were cramped and unhealthy, although slowly improving; authorities imposed restrictions on citizens' privacy, freedom of press, and freedom of assembly. Journalists continued to practice self-censorship, and the government and laws restricted religious freedom. Violence against women and spousal abuse remained problems, as well as trafficking in persons, discrimination against persons with disabilities, and societal harassment of homosexuals. There were reports of forced labor. RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From: a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life The government and its agents did not commit any politically motivated killings; however, the government reported that during the year, there were three army homicides and four suicides which were judged as resulting from military-related hazing.
    [Show full text]
  • Penal Code Offenses by Punishment Range Office of the Attorney General 2
    PENAL CODE BYOFFENSES PUNISHMENT RANGE Including Updates From the 85th Legislative Session REV 3/18 Table of Contents PUNISHMENT BY OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................... 2 PENALTIES FOR REPEAT AND HABITUAL OFFENDERS .......................................................... 4 EXCEPTIONAL SENTENCES ................................................................................................... 7 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 4 ................................................................................................. 8 INCHOATE OFFENSES ........................................................................................................... 8 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 5 ............................................................................................... 11 OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON ....................................................................................... 11 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 6 ............................................................................................... 18 OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY ......................................................................................... 18 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 7 ............................................................................................... 20 OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY .......................................................................................... 20 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 8 ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mission in Armenia 29 March to 3 April 2008
    Mission in Armenia 29 March to 3 April 2008 June 2008 - N°499/2 Mission in Armenia, 29 March to 3 April 2008 FOREWORD Alerted by both the "Democracy in Armenia" group and the Civil Society Institute (an FIDH affiliate) to the violent repression that followed the presidential elections in this country in February 2008, the undersigned lawyers and jurist were mandated by the President of the Paris Bar Association (M. le Bâtonnier de l’Ordre des Avocats de Paris) and the International Union of Lawyers (l’Union Internationale des Avocats) on one hand and, on the other hand, the FIDH (International Federation of Human Rights). The mission visited Yerevan from 29 March to 3 April to report on the situation of the right to defend oneself and the right to freedoms in the Republic of ARMENIA following the events that took place in February and March 2008. INTRODUCTION Before considering the legal and juridical context of the mission's work, it is appropriate to recall some chronological milestones to put into perspective the current situation in Armenia and its evolution, seventeen years after the independence of the Republic of Armenia was proclaimed in the Southern Caucasus. - 21 September, 1991: the Republic of Armenia becomes independent following a referendum. - October 1991: Election by universal suffrage of Mr. Levon TER-PETROSIAN, who becomes the first President of the Republic of Armenia. - 1992-1994: Fighting in the autonomous region of Nagorno-Karabakh between the opposing Armenian self- defence forces and the Azerbaijan armed forces. A cease-fire comes into force on 14 May 1994.
    [Show full text]
  • Equity's Power to Enjoin Criminal Acts
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 16 | Issue 2 Article 17 Fall 9-1-1959 Equity'S Power To Enjoin Criminal Acts Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Legal Remedies Commons Recommended Citation Equity'S Power To Enjoin Criminal Acts, 16 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 302 (1959), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol16/iss2/17 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 302 WASHINGTON AND LEE LAW REVIEW [Vol. XVI the right or the constitutional issues in the case.8 In other words, it must be decided whether or not Greene has a right to sue or whether his case presents a justiciable controversy before the other issues can be considered. Moreover, because of the type of relief which Greene sought-in effect, a mandatory injunction-the case really does present a problem of the right of access to secret information 9 Despite the apparent crucial nature of this issue, the Government concede it in oral argument before the Court, and, therefore, the opin- ion correctly speaks only in terms of dicta. Nevertheless, the language of the dicta is strong and unequivocal. But it is submitted that the Court erred in its statements and overlooked fundamental constitution- al law on this issue as pointed out in the above comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Misdemeanor State Violations Reportable Under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-3208
    MISDEMEANOR STATE VIOLATIONS REPORTABLE UNDER ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES (A.R.S.) § 32-3208 The following are the categories and types of misdemeanor offenses that have been determined to affect patient safety and are reportable under A.R.S. § 32-3208 by a licensee or license applicant. Other misdemeanors reportable under A.R.S. § 32-3208 besides those specifically listed below include any comparable charges filed against an Arizona licensee or license applicant by any other state, territory or country. I. CRIMINAL STATUTES A. Preparatory Offenses are reportable when charged in connection with any of the criminal misdemeanors listed as reportable under A.R.S. § 32-3208. A.R.S. § 13-1001 Attempt § 13-1002 Solicitation § 13-1003 Conspiracy § 13-1004 Facilitation B. Personal Offenses Assault § 13-1201 Endangerment § 13-1202 Threatening § 13-1203 Assault Kidnapping § 13-1303 Unlawful Imprisonment Sexual § 13-1402 Indecent Exposure § 13-1403 Public Sexual Indecency C. Property Offenses Theft § 13-1802 Theft § 13-1805 Shoplifting § 13-1806 Unlawful Failure to Return Rental or Lease Property § 13-1807 Issuing a Bad Check Forgery § 13-2005 Obtaining a Signature by Deception Fraud § 13-2103 Receipt of Anything of Value by Fraudulent Use of Credit Card § 13-2105 Fraudulent Use of a Credit Card § 13-2106 Possession of Machinery, Plate, Contrivance, or Incomplete Credit Card § 13-2108 Fraud by Person Authorized to Provide Goods or Services § 13-2109 Credit Card Transaction Record Theft § 13-2202 Deceptive Business Practices § 13-2203 False Advertising Perjury § 13-2704 Unsworn Falsification Interfering with Judicial Process § 13-2902 Simulating Legal Process D. Public Order Offenses § 13-2904 Disorderly Conduct § 13-2905 Loitering § 13-2906 Obstruction of Highway or Other Public Thoroughfare § 13-2908 Criminal Nuisance § 13-2910 Cruelty to Animals § 13-2916 Use of Telephone to Terrify, Intimidate, Threaten, Harass, Annoy, or Offend § 13-2921 Harassment § 13-2924 Unlawful Solicitation of Tort Victims E.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System
    A GUIDE TO MENTAL ILLNESS AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM A SYSTEMS GUIDE FOR FAMILIES AND CONSUMERS National Alliance on Mental Illness Department of Policy and Legal Affairs 2107 Wilson Blvd., Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22201 Helpline: 800-950-NAMI NAMI – Guide to Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System FOREWORD Tragically, jails and prisons are emerging as the "psychiatric hospitals" of the 1990s. A sample of 1400 NAMI families surveyed in 1991 revealed that 40 percent of family members with severe mental illness had been arrested one or more times. Other national studies reveal that approximately 8 percent of all jail and prison inmates suffer from severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorders. These statistics are a direct reflection of the failure of public mental health systems to provide appropriate care and treatment to individuals with severe mental illnesses. These horrifying statistics point directly to the need of NAMI families and consumers to develop greater familiarity with the workings of their local criminal justice systems. Key personnel in these systems, such as police officers, prosecutors, public defenders and jail employees may have limited knowledge about severe mental illness and the needs of those who suffer from these illnesses. Moreover, the procedures, terminology and practices which characterize the criminal justice system are likely to be bewildering for consumers and family members alike. This guide is intended to serve as an aid for those people thrust into interaction with local criminal justice systems. Since criminal procedures are complicated and often differ from state to state, readers are urged to consult the laws and procedures of their states and localities.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Immigration Detention in International Law And
    Immigration Detention in International Law and Practice (In search of solutions to the challenges faced in Bulgaria) This paper is a result of academic research in my PhD studies, but it is inspired and based on my experience as a practicing lawyer providing free legal aid at the immigration detention center in Sofia. Valeria Ilareva Table of Contents: I. Introduction The term “administrative detention”; who are immigration detainees? II. Legal grounds for detention. The two step proportionality approach: 1. General reasons for the lawfulness of the detention: 1.1. Pre-admission detention; 1.2. Pre-removal detention. 2. Individual reasons for the lawfulness of the detention: 2.1. Failure of voluntary return; 2.2. Risk of absconding or a proven threat to public order, public security or national security; 2.3. Failure of non-custodial measures. III. Rights of the detainees: procedural safeguards and detention conditions: 1. Procedural safeguards: 1.1. The right to be informed: 1.1.1. on the reasons for the detention; 1.1.2. on the rights in connection with the detention order; 1.2. Right of access to a lawyer; 1.3. Right to appeal; 1.4. Periodic review of detention; 1.5. Enforceable right to compensation for damages; 1.6. Rights of specific groups of persons: 1.6.1. Stateless persons 1.6.2. Protection of families (the right to respect for family life) 1.6.3. Rights of children 1.6.4. Regard for the special needs of other vulnerable groups. 2. Detention conditions IV. Conclusion I. Introduction Worldwide increasing numbers of asylum seekers and immigrants – real people with real rights - are deprived of their liberty through the construct of administrative detention.
    [Show full text]
  • Administrative Detention
    DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EXTERNAL POLICIES OF THE UNION POLICY DEPARTMENT ISRAEL'S POLICY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETENTION POLICY BRIEFING Abstract Administrative detention is a pre-emptive measure that allows authorities to detain suspects before the trial. While the procedure can be applied to anyone and exists in many countries, the issue has become particularly pressing in Israel. Israeli authorities use administrative detention principally to constrain Palestinian political activism and apply the procedure for an unlimited period of time without pressing charges. As of April 2012, there were 309 administrative detainees in Israeli prisons, contributing to the total tally of 5 000 Palestinians in Israeli jails, including 27 members of the Palestinian Legislative Council. A great many of these prisoners — some 2 000 — have been on a hunger strike since April 17, demanding better conditions of confinement and an end to detention without trial. The condition of two of the hunger strikers is critical. While international human rights organisations have recurrently condemned the Israeli practice of administrative detention as a violation of human rights, the issue has only recently attracted widespread international interest. The time is now ripe to place the issue on the agenda of European Union - Israel relations. DG EXPO/B/PolDep/Note/2012_146 May/2012 PE 491.444 EN Policy Department DG External Policies This Policy Briefing is an initiative of the Policy Department, DG EXPO AUTHORS: Dua' Nakhala and Pekka HAKALA, Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union Policy Department WIB 06 M 071 rue Wiertz 60 B-1047 Brussels Feedback to [email protected] is welcome Editorial Assistant: Agnieszka PUNZET LINGUISTIC VERSION Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR Manuscript completed on 10 May 2012.
    [Show full text]