CIDI misleidend over Khader Adnan en Israël's administratieve detentie

Het CIDI is over de hongerstaking van Khader Adnan 66 dagen lang muisstil geweest, maar nu is er toch echt een bericht dat zou kunnen passen in de Israël Goed Nieuws Show: Israel laat Palestijn vrij

Photo: Sharif Solaiman/Addameer op Mondoweiss

1.
De titel klopt niet, want Khader Adnan wordt niet vrijgelaten. Pas over 2 maanden. Inshallah.

2.
"De man, volgens Israel een actief leider van de terroristische organisatie Islamitische Jihad, zat ruim negen weken vast maar was nog niet in staat van beschuldiging gesteld."

Niet "volgens Israël" want die heeft nog steeds geen een beschuldiging kunnen formuleren. En zeker niet dat hij een "leider" was, noch dat hij "actief" was. Dat zijn allemaal suggesties geweest van de hasbara-horde.

3.
"De staat krijgt dan tijd bewijzen boven water te halen die wel in de rechtbank kunnen worden besproken."

Nonsens, omdat iemand in 'administratieve detentie' helemaal geen rechter te zien krijgt. Afgezien daarvan zitter er Palestijnen soms 6 jaar lang in 'administratieve detentie', dus kan dat nooit een argument zijn.

De Israëlische mensenrechtenorganisatie B'tselem:

According to international law, administrative detention can be used only in the most exceptional cases, as the last means available for preventing danger that cannot be thwarted by less harmful means.

Israel's use of administrative detention blatantly violates these restrictions. It is carried out under the thick cover of privilege, which denies detainees the possibility of mounting a proper defense. Over the years, Israel has administratively detained thousands of Palestinian for prolonged periods of time, without prosecuting them, without informing them of the charges against them, and without allowing them or their attorneys to study the evidence, making a mockery of the protections specified in Israeli and international law to protect the right to liberty and due process, the right of defendants to state their case, and the presumption of innocence.

Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association (pdf):

While international humanitarian law does allow the occupying power to use administrative detention, it is only under explicit and exceptional circumstances. Article 78 of the IV Geneva Convention gives the occupying power the authority to take safety measures, concerning protected persons (inhabitants of the occupied territories are regarded in the Convention as ‘protected persons’), including internment for ‘imperative reasons of security’ and not as a mean of punishment. On the contrary, the Israeli authorities have used administrative detention in most cases indiscriminately and as a means of punishment.
(...)
Carrying or placing a Palestinian flag is a crime in itself under Israeli military regulations and even pouring coffee for a member of a declared illegal association can be seen as support for a terrorist organization. Palestinian national security forces are also seen as an illegal association.
(..)
International humanitarian law, primarily comprising the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols, as well as international human rights law, provide the international legal standards that are to be applied to administrative detention in armed conflict and other situations of violence. International law permits administrative detention under specific, narrowly defined circumstances. In accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) there must be a public emergency that threatens the life of the nation. Furthermore, administrative detention can only be ordered on an individual case-by-case basis, without discrimination of any kind. A State’s collective, non-individual detention of a whole category of persons could in no way be considered a proportional response, regardless of what the circumstances of the emergency concerned might be. Only imperative reasons of security justify the use of administrative detention under international law. According to Adalah, Israel has sought to justify its policy of administrative detention by the remarkable claim that it has been under a “state of emergency since 1948” and is therefore justified in suspending or “derogating” from certain rights, including the right not to be arbitrarily detained. Administrative detention should not be used as a substitute for criminal prosecution where there is insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction.
Israel’s use of administrative detention deliberately infringes these restrictions.

Maar over die werkelijkheid lezen we natuurlijk niet bij het CIDI.

TRANSLATE