Petition (H)On 14 September 2004, the Supreme Court of Israel issued a judgment upholding the Israel Prison Service’s (IPS) decision to confiscate salt from Palestinian prisoners and detainees incarcerated in Israeli jails during their recent hunger strike. Chief Justice Aharon Barak and Justices A. Hayut and Y. Adi’il wrote the opinion.
The Court’s ruling came in response to a petition filed on 26 August 2004 by Adalah, in its own name, and on behalf of several family members of hunger-striking prisoners and Israeli and Palestinian NGOs, al-Dameer, Mandela, Prisoners' Friends Association, Al-Quds Centre for Human Rights and Legal Aid, Al-Haq, and Physicians for Human Rights – Israel, against the IPS and Minister of Internal Security. The petitioners, represented by Adalah Attorney Abeer Baker, requested that the Court issue an injunction and an order prohibiting the IPS from confiscating salt from the cells of Palestinian political prisoners and detainees who participated in the hunger strike, on the grounds that it violates their constitutional rights to life, bodily integrity and dignity. The Supreme Court provisionally denied the petitioners’ requests on 31 August 2004; this more detailed judgment followed.
Over 1,500 prisoners and detainees embarked upon a hunger strike on 15 August 2004, in protest against the deplorable conditions of confinement in Israeli prisons and detention centers. The striking prisoners eventually numbered around 3,000 individuals. The prisoners stated that the strike would involve abstaining from food, and not fluids and salt. From the beginning of the hunger strike, however, prison guards removed various items of property from the prisoners, including salt.
In the Court’s opinion, "Incarceration restricts the ability of prisoners to exercise their freedom of expression, and the limitations imposed upon prisoners' freedom of expression are stricter than the limitations imposed upon free individuals." Accordingly, the Court ruled that, "Even if we presume that the hunger strike is a legitimate means of expressing one's opinion and exercising the right of freedom of expression, hunger-striking is not considered a right accorded to a person during incarceration." In fact, the Court added that, "Hunger-striking impedes prison management."
According to the Court, the hunger strike, which ended on 2 September 2004, is a breach of the IPS’s internal regulations, and therefore the IPS is entitled to remove any amenities given to hunger-striking prisoners. However, the Court noted that this step must be proportionate, and not pose a danger to the prisoners' health or lives. The Court found that the steps taken by the IPS did not violate the prisoners' basic rights.
In its judgment, the Court fully accepted the IPS’s representations that it had no duty to provide salt to the prisoners, stating that, "The IPS is aware of the importance of salt, and investigated this question in the prison regulations as they relate to hunger strikes. The IPS also studied the prison regulations concerning the issue of medical examinations and hunger-striking prisoners, and the provision of prisoners with salt according to the condition of the each prisoner's health; under the present circumstances, and in the light of the claims of the IPS's physician, we are convinced that there is no need to interfere in the operation of the IPS, by forcing it to supply salt to prisoners."
Concerning the confiscation of salt from the prisoners' cells, the Court wrote that, "The storing of food in cells is not a basic right of prisoners, as the IPS is responsible for feeding them. Therefore, the IPS did not infringe the prisoners' basic rights when it removed salt from their cells, and furthermore it has the authority to act thus, and to sequester amenities from hunger-striking prisoners."
Contrary to the Court’s findings, Adalah argued in the petition that the confiscation of salt from prisoners living on water alone may result in immediate and severe damage to their physical health and well-being. According to expert opinions by physicians specializing in internal medicine included in the petition, the failure to ingest an adequate amount of salt has dangerous consequences for the health, and could result in vomiting, headaches, dizziness, breathing failure, and even death. "Under these circumstances," the petitioners argued, "any delay in providing salt to the prisoners participating in the hunger strike may endanger their well-being and violate their constitutional rights to life and bodily integrity."
The Court failed to address one of the petitioners’ main arguments, namely the issue of illegal and overly-broad punishment. One of the IPS’s claims was that the confiscation of salt was undertaken as a punishment against the prisoners for their decision to open the hunger strike. The IPS alleged that one of the reasons for categorizing hunger strikes as disciplinary offenses under its internal regulations is its concern for prisoners' health. The petitioners, however, argued that, while the IPS claims to be concerned for prisoners' health, at the same time it acted to accelerate the damage inflicted upon their health and bodily integrity by confiscating salt, an essential mineral for the human body, and particularly for a person on hunger strike. The IPS, which is responsible for the prisoners’ health and well-being, therefore failed to uphold its duty. Further, Adalah argued during the hearing that, even if the hunger strike is considered as a violation of the IPS's Regulations, unlike other punishments, including fines and solitary confinement, the confiscation of salt is not recognized in the regulations as a legal punishment.
H.C. 7837/04, Lila Bourgal, et.al. v. The Israel Prison Service, et. al.