Supreme Court to Hear Adalah’s Petition Against Closed Commission Hearings for GSS Witnesses

On 30 January 2002, Adalah Staff Attorney Marwan Dalal submitted a petition and a motion for a temporary injunction to the Supreme Court demanding that the official Commission of Inquiry into the October 2000 protest demonstrations (“the Commission”) hold open hearings for General Security Services (GSS) witnesses scheduled to testify on 31 January and 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court denied the motion for an injunction, and scheduled a hearing for Monday, 4 February 2002 to decide on whether the 6 February 2002 Commission session for GSS witnesses will also be held in camera.

In the petition, Adalah criticized the Commission’s decision to hold in camera hearings for GSS witnesses on the grounds that it violates the rights of the victims’ parents as well as the rest of the public to attend the hearings. Adalah argued that many intelligence officers have testified in open hearings before the Commission in the past, and that GSS witnesses should not be afforded any special privileges. Moreover, according to the testimony of other intelligence officers, the GSS had direct and primary involvement with the Palestinian community of Israel before and during the October 2000 protest demonstrations.

Adalah argued that the Commission’s decision contradicts Supreme Court precedent regarding GSS witness testimonies in court proceedings. Considering that the Commission is investigating the behavior of security and intelligence officers, which greatly damaged the public’s trust in state authorities, it is of fundamental importance that the Commission hold open hearings to fully disclose the testimony of GSS witnesses. Moreover, as Adalah argued in its 24 January 2002 motion to the Commission to reconsider its decision to hold closed hearings, the findings of the Landau Commission (1987) and the State Comptroller’s Report (2000) both indicate that the GSS has a history of giving false testimonies and obscuring the truth of events in which they played a role.

In the petition, Adalah referenced the Tribunals of Inquiry established by the British government to investigate the events of Bloody Sunday. During a civil rights march in Derry, Northern Ireland in1972 to protest against the internment of Irish political activists, the British army killed 13 Irish demonstrators and injured scores of other marchers; these events are known as “Bloody Sunday.” The first Tribunal, established immediately after the events in 1972, consisted of a single judge, Lord Widgery, who in his findings condemned the Irish demonstrators for creating an imminent danger to the lives of the British troops. In 1998, after 26 years of struggle by the families of the Irish victims, the British government formed a second Tribunal to re-investigate the 1972 Bloody Sunday events. According to Professor Dermot Walsh, in his book entitled, “Bloody Sunday and the Rule of Law in Northern Ireland,” the Widgery Tribunal committed a serious error by relying on a one-sided, biased and grossly misleading assessment of the background security situation offered by the British government. Professor Walsh states that by relying on this information, the Widgery Tribunal came to inaccurate conclusions. With these findings, according to Professor Walsh, the Tribunal lost the trust of public, who perceived that the Tribunal favored the government’s version of the events.

Although the Supreme Court rejected Adalah’s request for an injunction to postpone the closed Commission hearings for 31 January 2002, the Court will hear the petition on 4 February 2002 prior to the second Commission hearing for GSS witnesses scheduled on 6 February 2002.

(For more information on the Bloody Sunday Tribunals of Inquiry, see  www.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org.uk/index.htm.)