SUMMARY OF THE JUDGMENT REGARDING THE DETENTION CONDITION IN "KZOIT" CAMP (H.C. 5591/02)

The Court ruled today on the petition directed against the conditions of detention of those persons detained in the area of Judea and Samaria, during Operation Protective Wall, and who are now being held in the Kziot Camp in the Negev.
 As a result of severe terrorist activity in both the area and in Israel, the government decided to initiate a large-scale military operation against the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure in Judea and Samaria.  Many arrests were made within the framework of this operation.  The arrested persons were initially brought to temporary detention facilities.    After their initial screening, some of the detainees were moved to the Ofer Camp, a detention facility in the area.  As a result of overcrowding in that camp, it was decided that some of the detained should be moved to the detention facility at Kziot in the Negev.  Most of those held there are administrative detainees.
A petition directed against the detention conditions in the Kziot Camp was submitted to the Court.  The petitioners claimed that the conditions of detention are unsuitable and do not stand up to the minimum standards set by Israeli and international law.  The respondents (the head of the facility and the Minister of Defense) argued that, though the conditions in the facility are not comfortable, they are reasonable with respect to the reality in Israel.  During the first days of the operation of the facility, which was opened urgently and without warning, there were deficiencies. However, in time, the facility underwent many improvements.  The conditions, as they are today, do not substantially differ from conditions provided to soldiers that carry out detention operations and security functions, or the facilities in which many IDF solders live. These standards are in accordance with the minimal standards set by both Israeli and international law.
  The Court (President Barak, with Justices Beinisch and Englard concurring) held that it should be recognized that the people concerned are administrative detainees, who have not been brought to trial or convicted. They should enjoy the presumption of innocence.  The Court emphasized that although administrative detention denies the detainees of their liberty, it does not strip them of their humanity.  The balance between an individual’s rights on the one hand and national security on the other, as well as the fundamental idea of human dignity, the principles of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, and the demands of international law, all require that detainees be treated humanely, and in recognition of their human dignity.  These minimal requirements, which must be provided during detainment, emerge from both Israeli Law (Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, as well as other statutes and Supreme Court decisions) and the directives of international law, to which Israel is subject.
Against this background, the Court held, from the affidavits brought before it, it appears that the opening of the detention facility in Kziot was done hastily, and without preparation. In addition, at first, detention conditions did not meet minimal standards.  The Court noted that this deviation was unjustified.  “Operation Protective Wall was planned in advance.  Its primary goal was to uproot the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure…It was obvious to all – or at least should have been obvious – that one of the consequences of the operation would be a large number of detainees.  It was therefore necessary to prepare detention facilities in advance, which would satisfy minimal standards.  This was not done.” (paragraph 15 of the verdict).  However, the detention conditions were eventually improved, such that the conditions provided there now satisfy minimal required standards, and, in some cases, exceed them.  Tents are no longer overcrowded, and the supply of the food is satisfactory both in its quality and quantity.  During the summer, an adequate amount of ice is supplied. Changes of clothes are available.  Both conditions of personal hygiene and the general level of sanitation are satisfactory.  The medical treatment is satisfactory.  There is a canteen in operation at the facility, and detainees are provided with games.  As such, it was held that most of the detainees’ claims had been met.
At the same time, the Court recommended that on a number of issues, the respondents reconsider their positions on the conditions provided in the detention facility.  As to the detainees’ being held in tents, the Court held that it should be examined whether, in consideration of the length of detention, the quality of the tents and the local conditions, it is justified to continue holding the detainees in tents. This is in spite of the fact that administrative detainees in other facilities – as well as Israeli soldiers – reside in tents for long periods of time.  With reference to beds, the Court noted that there seems to be a problem with regard to their relatively low height, and the incursion of various harmful animals into them.  The Court held that detainees should be provided with reasonable sleeping conditions. It also held that the height of the beds does not raise any security issues.  As to the conditions of hygiene, the Court noted that the issue of installing toilet seats should be reexamined.  With regard to tables for eating, it was noted that, although the respondents justify their absence by appealing to security concerns, they should reconsider their position on the matter and find a satisfactory resolution to the problem. This should be done in accord with their legal obligation to provide detainees with minimal humane detention conditions.
For the reasons stated above, the petition was dismissed.