The right not to be subjected to torture is an absolute right, valid in any situation and under all circumstances. In 1999 the
High Court of Justice ruled that certain interrogation methods routinely used by the ISA amounted to torture, as a result of which the use of such methods has markedly declined. However, the court did not preclude the applicability of the "necessity exclusion" which exonerates, under certain circumstances, ISA interrogators who used banned methods, from criminal liability to their actions. The court's decision to refrain from the imposition of a sweeping and absolute prohibition on tortures, created, inter alia, a gray area, in which ISA interrogators act, using inappropriate interrogation methods which amount to actual torture, even if not defined as such by the court.
HaMoked, which has been handling for many years complaints of Palestinian detainees concerning tortures, turned on September 11, 2014
to the Deputy State Attorney, and expressed the concern that many complaints which have been recently accumulated regarding the use of inappropriate interrogation methods, indicate of a wide phenomenon in ISA interrogations.
HaMoked specified some of the interrogation methods with respect of which complaints were received. Among other things, HaMoked specified in its letter torture techniques such as the conduct of very long interrogations, forced crouching of detainees in contorted positions; prolonged and painful shackling including handcuffing to the bed in the cell in which the detainees are held, threats, screaming, yelling and swearing during the interrogation.
HaMoked clarified that beyond the specific complaints which were submitted by it on behalf of interogees and in addition to complaints which would be submitted by it in the future, the state attorney's office should examine whether we are concerned with a wide scope phenomenon, and if turned out that this was indeed the case – action should be immediately taken to stop it.
