Quarterly Update on Palestinian Prisoners
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
QUARTERLY UPDATE ON PALESTINIAN PRISONERS Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association (15 January–30 August 2012) Note: A quarterly newsletter covering the first quarter of 2012 was not issued. Therefore, this newsletter will cover the past two quarters and information to date. CURRENT ARREST AND DETENTION STATISTICS* 4,660 Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli detention, including: 250 administrative detainees, including 9 PLC members 8 women 210 child prisoners, including 34 under the age of 16 15 members of the Palestinian Legislative Council 66 prisoners who have been imprisoned for more than 20 years 206 Palestinians from the 1948 Territories 449 prisoners from the Gaza Strip 152 prisoners from East Jerusalem 1,952 approximate number of Palestinians arrested by Israel between 1 January – 31 July Number of Palestinians arrested every month by Israel: January 2008 – July 2012 *Detention statistics are based on reports from the Israeli Prison Service and Addameer’s monitoring. Detention statistics are current as of 31 July 2012, except for the number of women and PLC members, which are current as of 30 August 2012 and based on Addameer’s own documentation. Arrest statistics are based on figures from the Palestinian Monitoring Group and are current as of 31 July 2012. ADDAMEER QUARTERLY UPDATE ON PALESTINIAN PRISONERS (15 JAN 2012-30 AUGUST 2012) PRISONER NEWS & ADVOCACY UPDATE Hunger strikes Overview The Palestinian political prisoners’ movement has reinvigorated its strength in the international arena through the wave of historic individual and mass hunger strikes that have characterized this reporting period. The hunger strikes are indicative of the further deterioration of prison conditions and treatment of Palestinian prisoners, with many hunger strikers commenting that they view a hunger strike as the only available tool left to fight for their basic rights. Though focus on hunger strikers has diminished since the conclusion of the mass hunger strike in May, four Palestinian detainees continue their “hunger strikes for dignity” to this day. The 2012 hunger strikes began with Khader Adnan, who launched his hunger strike in protest against ill- treatment he suffered at the hands of the Israeli Prison Service (IPS) upon his arrest and against being held without charge or trial in administrative detention. He ended his hunger strike on its 66th day on 21 February, when an agreement was made with Israeli authorities that he would be released on 17 April and his administrative detention order would not be renewed. At the time, he was the longest Palestinian hunger striker in history. On 16 February, Hana Shalabi also launched a hunger strike after being re-arrested by Israel, in protest of ill-treatment and her administrative detention. After 43 days of hunger strike and at risk of death, she ended her hunger strike on 29 March when an agreement was made that she would be released on the condition that she would be expelled to the Gaza Strip for a period of three years. Inspired by the two administrative detainees, Palestinian prisoners launched solidarity hunger strikes and by the end of Hana’s hunger strike, 33 other prisoners were also engaged in open hunger strikes. Of the prisoners on full hunger strike, the majority of whom were in administrative detention, all were subjected to various punishments by the IPS, including isolation, fines, denial of family visits, strip searches, frequent transfers, and other forms of ill- treatment. By the beginning of the mass hunger strike on 17 April, eight Palestinian prisoners remained on extended hunger strikes launched during and following the hunger strikes of Khader and Hana. An estimated 1,200 Palestinian prisoners announced the beginning of an open hunger strike on Palestinian Prisoners’ Day on 17 April, along with approximately 2,300 who refused meals from the IPS. The hunger striking prisoners’ demands included: an end to the IPS’ abusive use of long-term isolation for “security” reasons, which at the time affected 19 prisoners; an end to Israel’s practice of detaining Palestinians without charge or trial in administrative detention; a repeal of a series of punitive measures taken against Palestinian prisoners following the capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, including the denial of family visits for all Gaza prisoners since 2007 and denial of access to university education since June 2011. By the end of April, approximately 2,000 prisoners were on hunger strike, with news from within the prisons indicating that the numbers were increasing each week. The prisoners involved in the mass hunger strike faced harsh punishments by the IPS, including being transferred to isolation sections or other prisons, fines, denial of access to salt and daily raids and attacks on their sections. In further attempt to isolate the prisoners from the outside world and from each other, the IPS prevented hunger strikers from meeting with their lawyers. Addameer lawyer Samer Samaan was officially banned from visiting the prisons. Simultaneously, prisoners engaged in protracted hunger strikes, such as administrative detainees Bilal Diab and Thaer Halahleh, were denied access to independent doctors and the IPS refused to transfer them to civilian hospitals for adequate care, despite the severe deterioration of their medical conditions. Throughout the hunger strike, a committee of 10 prisoners representing all the hunger strikers engaged in meetings with Israeli authorities to advocate for their demands. On the night before the commemoration of 64 years since the Palestinian Nakba (“Catastrophe”), 28 days after the beginning of the hunger strike, the hunger strike committee 2 ADDAMEER QUARTERLY UPDATE ON PALESTINIAN PRISONERS (15 JAN 2012-30 AUGUST 2012) met with IPS officials and Israeli intelligence officers and determined the stipulations of the agreement to end the hunger strike. The agreement contained five main provisions, included in written and oral form: the prisoners would end their hunger strike following the signing of the agreement; the 19 prisoners in long-term isolation for “security” reasons would be moved out of isolation within 72 hours; family visits for first degree relatives to prisoners from the Gaza Strip and for families from the West Bank who have been denied visits based on vague “security” reasons would be reinstated within one month; the Israeli intelligence agency guaranteed that there would be a committee formed to facilitate meetings between the IPS and prisoners in order to improve their daily conditions; new administrative detention orders or renewals of administrative detention orders for the Palestinians currently in administrative detention would be limited, unless the secret files, upon which administrative detention is based, contained “very serious” information. Updates since the agreement to end the mass hunger strike Notably, of the 19 prisoners held in long-term isolation for so-called “security” reasons, 18 were subsequently removed from isolation following the conclusion of the hunger strike. These 18 include Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) Secretary General Ahmad Sa’adat, who was in isolation for over three years, and Mahmoud Issa, who was held in isolation for over ten years. Nevertheless, Israel’s use of isolation for punitive reasons as a policy remains unchanged. Dirar Abu Sisi, held for an extended period in isolation at the time of the agreement, has still not been transferred to the general prison population. An additional prisoner, Awad Saidi, had been placed in isolation in April and is currently still in isolation under a six-month isolation order. Though the agreement stipulated that family visits for prisoners from Gaza would resume within one month, the first visit did not occur until two months later, on 16 July, during which 25 prisoners were able to receive visits from their relatives in prison for half-hour periods. To date, seven such visits have taken place to a total of 221 prisoners, leaving more than half of the 449 Gaza prisoners still isolated from their families. It remains unclear when or if any families will be granted second visits. For families of prisoners from the West Bank previously denied visits based on vague “security” reasons, numerous family members have since received permission, but some are still denied. Improvements to basic prison conditions, including an end to violent searches and night raids on prison sections and a resumption of access to university education, which has been denied since the summer of 2011, also as of yet have not occurred. In the discussion of the agreement, the hunger strike committee was told that access to university education was not included in the written agreement because the case was already being brought before the Israeli High Court and the IPS would adopt the High Court’s decision. The High Court has yet to hear the case. As for Israel’s arbitrary use of administrative detention, in the immediate aftermath of the hunger strike, no apparent change had occurred. Within just three weeks, Amnesty International documented at least 30 renewals of administrative detention orders and three new orders issued. Currently, there are less administrative detainees than there were prior to the hunger strike, but it is too soon to discern whether or not this is a trend that will remain consistent. Furthermore, the renewals of administrative detention orders for two previous hunger strikers, Samer Al-Barq and Hassan Safadi, forced them to re-launch their hunger strikes in protest, which continue to this day. Individual hunger strikes following the agreement Of the eight prisoners on extended hunger strikes upon the conclusion of the mass hunger strike, five were administrative detainees. These five were all promised release upon the expiration of their current orders. Thaer Halahleh, Bilal Diab and Jaafar Azzedine were all released, while Hassan Safadi and Omar Abu Shalal’s orders were renewed. Omar had spent 70 days on hunger strike, and after Hassan’s order was renewed, Omar’s lawyer decided to take his case to the High Court.