Experts of the Committee against Torture Commend Israel’s Initiative for Frontline Mental Health Professionals, Raise Questions on Monitoring Conditions in Israeli Prisons and Allegations of Systemic Torture of Palestinian Detainees
The Committee against Torture today concluded its consideration of the sixth periodic report of Israel, with Committee Experts commending an initiative in Israel which focused on frontline mental health professionals as a good practice, while raising questions on how conditions were monitored in Israeli prisons, and allegations of systematic torture of Palestinian detainees.
Anna Racu, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, highlighted a remarkable and unique initiative in Israel, supported by the World Health Organization, focusing on frontline mental health professionals who, while caring for others during the ongoing conflict, suffered trauma, burnout, and emotional exhaustion. The programme offered restorative workshops to enhance resilience and team cohesion, helping safeguard both the well-being of medical staff and the continuity of mental health services. This human rights-based approach represented a good practice that should be continued and replicated, given the exposure and responsibility of healthcare workers in crisis settings.
Ms. Racu asked what independent monitoring and complaint mechanisms were currently operating within the prison system, and how were their findings used to ensure accountability and remedy violations? Could data be shared on the use of alternatives to detention such as electronic supervision and conditional release, and whether these were equally accessible to minors, non-citizens and Palestinian detainees?
Peter Vedel Kessing, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the fact that Israel had ratified the Convention against Torture demonstrated the State’s willingness to eradicate and prevent torture and inhumane treatment. However, the Committee was deeply appalled by the large number of alternative reports received from a variety of sources of what appeared to be systematic and widespread torture and inhuman treatment of Palestinians, including children and other vulnerable groups.
The reports highlighted that torture and ill-treatment had escalated sharply since 7 October 2023, reaching unprecedented levels and carried out with near-total impunity. Mr. Kessing said many of those detained and subsequently released had reported being subjected to torture or other ill-treatment; severe beatings, including on the genitals; electric shocks; being forced to remain in stress positions for prolonged periods; deliberate inhumane conditions and starvation; waterboarding; and widespread sexual insults and threats of rape. It was reported to the Committee that thousands of Palestinians from Gaza, including women and children, spent months in military custody in appalling conditions, losing life, limbs and health.
Mr. Kessing said it had been reported to the Committee many times that Palestinians were exposed to abuse and torture during interrogations, including the use of tightly locked handcuffs, urination, humiliation and denial of religious rights, among others. However, Israel had disputed these claims today. Why should the Committee not believe the reports received from five alternative and reliable institutions? As of November 2024, only 15 indictments had been filed against soldiers for crimes committed in connection with the war. What was the number of complaints over the last three years against the Israel Defence Forces for torture or inhumane treatment? How many Israeli soldiers had been held to account for torture and ill-treatment of Palestinians?
Daniel Meron, Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Office at Geneva and co-head of the delegation, said Israel was appearing before the Committee today after a two-year war that began on 7 October 2023 with the horrific massacre and the taking of over 250 hostages by Hamas and its accomplices. This was followed by acts of sadistic violence, including torture, rape and other forms of inhumane treatment. Israel faced a terrorist organization that vowed to carry out more attacks and had instrumentalised Gazan civilians as tools of warfare. Despite these challenges, Israel had taken extensive measures to fulfil its legal obligations and mitigate harm to the civilian population.
Mr. Meron said from the first day of the war, there had been a mass disinformation campaign against Israel, including baseless claims and distorted data often originating from Hamas. Regretfully, some members of the Committee had relied on disinformation published by Special Rapporteur Francesa Albanese, and the Commission of Inquiry. Both mechanisms were notorious for their political agendas, anti-Semitic rhetoric, and justification of terrorism. Israel expected integrity, impartiality and neutrality.
The delegation said a new division had been established for alternative incarceration, intended to expand and adapt the use of noncustodial measures, including electronic monitoring. In 2024, the number of these devices was increased by 500. Detention conditions were monitored by the Israel Prison Service and by a wide variety of independent external bodies. The Israel Prison Service was required to grant any authorised inspector access to their facilities. The Service maintained a zero-tolerance policy of harm to detainees. All personnel received training on topics such as imprisonment of minors and those with disabilities. In cases involving the death of an inmate, a commission of inquiry should be established immediately.
Mr. Meron said Isarel refuted the claim of systematic and widespread abuse and cases of torture and ill-treatment. In an exception case of an individual breaking the law, they needed to be held to account. Claiming these exceptional cases were systematic was false.
The delegation said the horrible atrocities committed by Hamas during the 7 October massacre had not changed the Israel Defence Forces’ commitment to international law. The Israel Defence Forces rejected allegations of systematic abuse detainees but took all claims seriously. A robust system of oversight was in place to ensure detainees were held lawfully, including through the operation of CCTV systems. The Israel Defence Forces were committed to investigating and prosecuting the misconduct of professionals. To date, 13 criminal investigations regarding alleged detainee mistreatment had been ordered, with
one case already tried in a military tribunal and with a conviction of a solider.
Israel rejected allegations of systematic use of sexual and gender-based violence, the delegation said. These were inconsistent with the Israeli security forces strict legal and ethical framework, which explicitly prohibited all forms of gender-based violence. Oversight mechanisms were in place, as well as regulations that ensured detainees were treated with respect at all times. Incidents which deviated from this were thoroughly investigated.
Also introducing the report, Itamar Donenfeld, Director General of the Ministry of Justice of Israel and co-head of the delegation, said 7 October was a day of unimaginable horror which tore apart every boundary of law and morality. The Committee must condemn Hamas and the atrocities it had committed and use all means within its mandate to demand the release of hostages. Israel remained fully committed to fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. Since 7 October 2023, the Deputy-General for Criminal Law had been closely monitoring issues relating to the Convention. The Israel Law Enforcement Agency and the Israel Defence Forces regularly underwent training on human rights law and human rights.
In closing remarks, Claude Heller, Committee Chair, said the dialogue held with the State of Israel had been characterised by its frankness. The Committee recognised that 7 October 2023 was one of the most traumatic events for the State of Israel, and understood very well the trauma the country had gone through. Israel was urged to look at the dialogue as an opportunity to revise and reconsider.
In his concluding remarks, Mr. Donenfeld thanked the Committee for its engagement over the past two days. Throughout the dialogue, Israel demonstrated its full commitment to the Convention, through facts, data, legal safeguards and robust oversight mechanisms.
The delegation of Israel consisted of representatives from the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Ministry of National Security; the Population and Immigration Authority; the Israel Prison Service; the Israel Police; the International Law Division; and the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will issue concluding observations on the report of Israel at the end of its eighty-third session on 28 November. Those, and other documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, will be available on the session’s webpage. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, and webcasts of the public meetings can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public on Thursday, 13 November at 3 p.m. to conclude its consideration of the seventh periodic report of Argentina (CAT/C/ARG/7).
Report
The Committee has before it the sixth periodic report of Israel (CAT/C/ISR/6).
Presentation of Report
DANIEL MERON, Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Office at Geneva and Co-Head of the Delegation, said Israel had signed the Convention in 1986, and ratified it in 1991. The delegation was appearing before the Committee today after a two-year war that began on 7 October 2023 with the horrific massacre and the taking of over 250 hostages by Hamas and its accomplices. This was followed by acts of sadistic violence, including torture, rape and other forms of inhumane treatment. The ensuing war in Gaza was one that Israel never wanted; Israel faced a terrorist organization that vowed to carry out more attacks and had instrumentalised Gazan civilians as tools of warfare.
Hamas controlled the population of Gaza through terror: in recent days, Hamas executed Gazans in the street in broad daylight. Despite these challenges, Israel had taken extensive measures to fulfil its legal obligations and mitigate harm to the civilian population. Since 7 October 2023, Israel had facilitated the entry of over two million tons of supplies, including food, medicine, fuel and clean water, and had facilitated the vaccination of children in Gaza, voluntary medical evacuation of patients to third countries, and delivery of medical equipment.
From the first day of the war, there had been a mass disinformation campaign against Israel, including baseless claims and distorted data often originating from Hamas. There had also been near silence of human rights bodies on the plight of the hostages held by Hamas. The Special Rapporteur on Torture presented her report on ‘Torture and Hostage-Taking’ before the Human Rights Council in March 2025, stating that “the physical and mental pain and suffering endured by hostages and their families clearly meet the threshold of torture”. Additionally, the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict found clear and convincing evidence that sexual violence, including rape, sexualised torture, and other forms of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, was committed against hostages.
Last week, released hostage Rom Braslavski spoke of sadistic acts of torture he had endured in the hands of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Israel expected the Committee to address the atrocities committed against Israeli citizens in its concluding observations. On 13 October, the remaining 20 surviving hostages held by Hamas for 737 days returned home, while the bodies of four fallen hostages remained in Gaza. The surviving hostages had endured unspeakable physical, emotional and psychological torture. Israel hoped the return of the hostages and the ceasefire agreement would bring hope of better days to come for Israel and the region. Mr. Meron concluded by stating that Israel maintained that the applicability of the Convention to “territory under its jurisdiction”, pursuant to article 2, related to jurisdiction that was inherent to its sovereign territory.
ITAMAR DONENFELD, Director General of the Ministry of Justice of Israel and Co-Head of the Delegation, reaffirmed Israel’s full and unwavering commitment to the Convention. The dialogue carried weight, at a time when Israel and the Jewish people faced a campaign of de-legitimation and anti-Semitism worldwide. October 7 was a day of unimaginable horror which tore apart every boundary of law and morality. Thousands of Hamas terrorists had invaded Isarel and slaughtered, raped, beheaded and tortured innocent civilians; the worst massacre since the Holocaust, with over 1,200 murdered. These crimes were deliberately filmed by Hamas and broadcast live to the world. On the same day, Hamas took 251 people hostage including children, women and Holocaust survivors. Hamas systemically used physical and psychological torture as a method of warfare, including sexual torture and starvation, among other forms of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. The families of the hostages had endured unimaginable torment, including seeing their loved ones murdered, starving and humiliated.
Two years after it began, Israel succeeded in bringing home the remaining living hostages. Hamas still held the bodies of dead hostages and Israel was committed to bringing them home. The 7 October massacre was followed by a coordinated attack orchestrated by Iran and also unleashed a dark wave of anti-Semitism worldwide. This was even reflected in the United Nations, which had been weaponised to reflect the propaganda of a modern terrorist organization. For nearly two years, the Committee had remained silent, issuing no statement condemning Hamas or calling for the release of hostages. The Committee must condemn Hamas and the atrocities it had committed and use all means within its mandate to demand the release of hostages. The Committee was urged to ensure that its reports remained objective and free from political violence.
Israel remained fully committed to fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. Since 7 October 2023, the Deputy-General for Criminal Law had been closely monitoring issues relating to the Convention. In October 2024, the Court Administration issued a protocol regulating judicial visits, both scheduled and unannounced, to detention facilities. Visits had already taken place focusing on staff performance and rehabilitation efforts. Judges and lawyers were authorised to visit prisons to inspect the conditions and treatment of prisons. A similar mechanism was established in Israel Defence Forces facilities, adding an external layer of oversight.
In 2024, a new platform was launched for victims of crime, in Arabic, supported by visual aids. The Israel Law Enforcement Agency and the Israel Defence Forces regularly underwent training on human rights law and human rights. Israel remained fully committed to the principle of non-refoulment and did not return any person to a country where they were at risk of being tortured. Mr. Donenfeld urged the Committee to focus on Israel’s legal frameworks and safeguards.
Questions by Committee Experts
PETER VEDEL KESSING, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, warmly thanked the delegation of Israel for coming to Geneva today to engage in the dialogue with the Committee. The fact that Israel had ratified the Convention against Torture and was here despite difficult times and with a large and impressive delegation demonstrated Israel’s willingness to strengthen the implementation of the Convention and prevent and eradicate torture and ill-treatment. Mr. Kessing expressed sympathy to Israel and condemned the terrible terrorist attack committed by Hamas on 7 October 2023, where more than 1,200 people were killed and more than 6,000 were injured. Over 250 people were taken hostage by Hamas that day, including 36 babies and children.
The attack by Hamas has been strongly condemned by the international community in different fora.
The Committee was relieved that a ceasefire had been established and that hostages had been released and handed over to Israel in a first stage of the proposed peace plan adopted at Sharm El Sheik on 13 October 2025. Mr. Kessing stressed that during this examination, the Committee was going to discuss Israel’s compliance with the Convention, not the State of Palestine’s compliance with the Convention. The Committee was aware and concerned about consistent and well-documented information about torture and war crimes committed by Hamas against Israeli soldiers and civilians, including the taking of hostages in conflict with international law, and that hostages had been exposed to large scale violence, including murder, torture, sexual assault and severe physical abuse. The Committee would seriously question and discuss this
with the State of Palestine in a session soon. Mr. Kessing also emphasised that neither international humanitarian law nor international human rights law was based on reciprocity.
The Committee would focus on the Convention during the dialogue and would not discuss genocide, unlawful occupation, or war crimes, if not directly related. However, it had noted with grave concern that the International Court of Justice found in its order of 26 January 2024 that it was plausible that Israel had committed acts of genocide in Gaza. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian occupied territories and other groups had concluded ‘that the world is witnessing genocide in Gaza’. It was also noted that the International Criminal Court had issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, and for Yoav Gallant, the former Minister of Defence of Israel, for crimes against humanity and war crimes. These tentative findings and observations were extremely serious. Under the Convention, even in times of war, torture and other inhumane acts were prohibited.
Mr. Kessing said the fact that Israel had ratified the Convention against Torture demonstrated the State’s willingness to eradicate and prevent torture and inhumane treatment. However, the Committee was deeply appalled by the large number of alternative reports received from a variety of sources of what appeared to be systematic and widespread torture and inhuman treatment of Palestinians, including children and other vulnerable groups. The reports highlighted that torture, and ill-treatment had escalated sharply since 7 October 2023, reaching unprecedented levels and carried out with near-total impunity. Many of those detained and subsequently released had reported being subjected to torture or other ill-treatment; severe beatings, including on the genitals; electric shocks; being forced to remain in stress positions for prolonged periods; deliberate inhumane conditions and starvation; waterboarding; and widespread sexual insults and threats of rape.
In April 2024, an Israeli doctor had reported that two Palestinian detainees from Gaza had their limbs amputated in a “routine event” due to severe shackling by the Israel Defence Forces. All reports claimed that torture had become a deliberate and widespread tool of State policy, employed across all legal, administrative and operational systems. Was torture and ill-treatment banned and condemned at the highest political level in Israel? What political statements or instructions were conveyed to Israeli State officials banning and condemning torture during interrogation and detention?
Did Israel accept the information received by the Committee and agree that the number of cases concerning torture of Palestinians had dramatically increased since 7 October 2023? If so, what measures had been taken to prohibit and prevent torture and ill-treatment? Was Israel considering establishing an independent domestic inquiry to investigate all allegations of breaches of international law, including torture? Did Israel agree with the recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice that depriving people from basic necessities of life could amount to torture? What measures had the State taken to comply with this opinion?
Israel held the position that the State was not bound by the Convention when operating in Gaza and in the West Bank. However, it was the position of the International Court of Justic that Israel was bound by the Convention when operating in occupied Palestinian territory and in times of armed conflict. Did Israel maintain the position that Israel was not bound by the Convention when operating in occupied Palestinian territory in Gaza or the West Bank? Did the State believe the Convention did not apply in times of armed conflict? If not, did Israel agree that many of the obligations in the Convention were also found in the Geneva Conventions and in customary international law, which clearly applied when Israel operated in occupied territory, including Gaza and the West Bank?
The Committee expressed concern in its concluding observations from 2016 that a specific offence of torture had not been adopted in Israel. Was Israel considering criminalising torture in the Israeli penal law? Could other provisions in the Israeli Penal Code be used to prosecute torture? Was it correct that under current legislation, torture could only be prosecuted with a penalty of three years and the crime was subject to the statute of limitation? Was cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment criminalised in Israeli law?
Was there still a ban in Israeli jurisprudence on using evidence obtained by torture or by cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment? Were there concrete Israeli court cases where evidence had been excluded because it was extracted by torture or ill-treatment? On whom was the burden of proof in cases where allegations arose that evidence was obtained by torture and ill-treatment? Had the bill from 2016 banning torture evidence been adopted by the Parliament?
Mr. Kessing understood that pursuant to two cases, Israel Security Agency interrogators could be prosecuted for using torture during interrogation, but they were immune from investigation and prosecution if they only exposed the interrogee to cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment - and there was a ‘real and substantial threat to human life’. Was this correct? How many criminal investigations against Israel Security Agency interrogators had been suspended over the last three years due to the ‘necessity defence’? How was it decided that an individual posed a ‘a real and substantial threat to life’? Could the Committee receive information about the official Israeli definition of torture and if the definition was based on the Convention? Did severe beatings, electrocution, being forced to remain in stress positions for prolonged periods, hanging by the wrists, or waterboarding constitute severe pain or suffering, and thereby torture? Detainees had the right to be brought before a judge ‘immediately’. What did ‘immediately’ mean? How long time could a habeas corpus court hearing be postponed?
The Committee had been informed that by September 2025, 2,662 Palestinians were detained as ‘unlawful combatants’, and thousands of others had been held for months and released with no charges. The Committee was informed that the whereabouts of detained unlawful combatants were being concealed, and that they were being completely prevented from communicating with the outside world. Was this information correct? How many unlawful combatants had been detained over the last three years. Could individuals only be detained as unlawful combatants if there was an ongoing armed conflict? Now there was a ceasefire, did Israel intend to either release or to establish another legal basis for detaining those Palestinians who currently were detained as ‘unlawful combatants’?
It was reported to the Committee that since 7 October 2023, all detainees from the Gaza Strip had been defined as 'unlawful combatants'. It was further reported in Israeli media that an 82-year-old woman, suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, was arrested and held as an ‘unlawful combatant’ for two months. Who could be designated as an ‘unlawful combatant’? How was it established that a Palestinian was an ‘unlawful combatant’? Was it correct that an 82-year-old sick woman was detained for two months as an ‘unlawful combatant’? If so, how could this be justified? Did Isarel agree that unlawful combatants were protected by the Geneva Conventions? Which legal safeguards were ‘unlawful combatants’ entitled to, including access to a lawyer, family members and a medical examination, and access to a hearing by an independent Court or Tribunal? Were they able to challenge their detention?
It was reported that Israel had significantly expanded its use of administrative detention. Between 2,000 and 3,600 individuals were held each month in administrative detention since October 2023, without charge or trial. Could Israel provide statistical information disaggregated by gender, age and location on the number of individuals in administrative detention since 7 October 2023, and on the length of administrative detention? What were the legal safeguards for individuals in administrative detention? What measures were in place to ensure the independence and impartiality of military judges. Did detainees have access to evidence in the military court? The Committee had been informed that administrative detention could only be used in relation to Palestinians. Was this correct and if so, why was this the case?
It was reported to the Committee that the Israeli complaints and investigative system was fragmented across security sectors. Investigations of alleged torture and ill-treatment could take years and were conducted separately for each branch of the security forces. The Committee had received reports that 80 prisoners, including a 17-years old boy, had died in Israeli detention, at least 12 with evidence of torture, with no one held responsible for these acts.
The Committee had received reports that the situation of Israel Security Agency interrogations had worsened since 7 October 2023, with interrogators resorting to torture and ill-treatment, including painful shackling, sleep deprivation, exposure to extreme heat and cold, threats, sexual harassment, and religion-based humiliation. Was it established in Israeli law and practice that Israel Security Agency interrogators were never allowed to use torture or other forms of ill-treatment during interrogation? What measures were being taken to stop and prevent the alleged torture and ill-treatment during interrogations?
The Israel Security Agency was monitored by the Inspector for Complaints against the Israel Security Agency, a government position within the Ministry of Justice. Between 2001 and 2022, over 1,450 complaints of torture were filed to the Inspector’s Office, resulting in three criminal investigations and no indictments. How could this outcome be the case? How many complaints of torture and ill-treatment had the Inspector received over the last three years and what was the outcome of examinations? How many interrogators had been punished in the last three years by criminal or disciplinary sanctions for using interrogation methods that amounted to torture or inhumane treatment?
Since January 2018, cameras had been installed in all interrogation rooms that broadcast regularly via closed circuit to an external control room. How many control and supervision hours had been conducted in 2024 and 2025? How many times had supervisors witnessed that detainees had been exposed to torture or inhuman treatment? How many times had cases been referred to
the Inspector for Complaints against the Israel Security Agency for investigation and possible prosecution?
It was reported to the Committee that thousands of Palestinians from Gaza, including women and children, spent months in military custody in appalling conditions, losing life, limbs and health. What measures were taken, following the report of the Advisory Committee, to prevent the torture of children by the Israel Defence Forces? As of November 2024, only 15 indictments had been filed against soldiers for crimes committed in connection with the war. What was the number of complaints over the last three years against Israel Defence Forces for torture or inhumane treatment? How many Israeli soldiers had been held to account for torture and ill-treatment of Palestinians?
It was reported last week in the Israeli press that an Israel Defence Force military advocate-general resigned a few weeks ago and was arrested for leaking a video allegedly showing five Israel Defence Force soldiers torturing a Palestinian detainee at Sde Teiman camp. What was the status of the pending criminal investigation of the five soldiers? Was it correct that the Palestinian detainee was released and transferred to Gaza without being questioned about the incident? How would his witness statement be recorded or secured now he was in Gaza? Would the detainee receive any form of redress or compensation from Israeli authorities? Could a State official be prosecuted for leaking evidence of torture carried out by the military? Was there a whistleblower mechanism in place ensuring torture could be brought to the attention of the Attorney General without any risk of being prosecuted?
ANNA RACU, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the Committee was fully aware of the complex and difficult context under which the Government of Israel operated. The events of 7 October 2023 had deeply shaken the world, reminding all of the immense human cost of violence. Since Israel’s previous review in 2016, the State party had undertaken significant steps to enhance its legal and institutional framework for the prevention of torture and ill-treatment. Legislative amendments, judicial reforms, and policy initiatives had been introduced to improve detention conditions and enhance procedural safeguards. These were commendable developments that reflected a commitment to continuous progress and engagement with international standards. However, the Committee was aware that many challenges persisted.
Ms. Racu expressed appreciation to the delegation for the detailed and well-structured information provided in the State report, particularly noting that training for senior management and police commanders was explicitly included, which was commendable. Could the delegation provide updated details on the content, frequency, and evaluation of human rights and anti-torture training programmes for law enforcement officials? Was this training systematically delivered to all categories of officers, and how was its effectiveness assessed in practice? How were modules on tolerance, elimination of prejudice, and awareness of human rights conventions implemented? What mechanisms ensured their consistency across institutions? What oversight mechanisms ensured that officers were properly trained and held accountable for any misconduct, particularly regarding use of force or ill-treatment during arrest or detention?
The Committee had received credible reports from civil society and professional associations indicating that training and awareness gaps persisted among those responsible for the prevention and documentation of torture. Could the delegation inform the Committee whether training on the Istanbul Protocol and the absolute prohibition of torture was currently included in the professional development of medical, legal, and law enforcement personnel, and what steps were envisaged to make such training mandatory, practical, and sustainable in the years ahead?
Amendment no. 25 to the youth law allowed minors aged 12 to 14 who were convicted of aggravated or attempted murder in the context of terrorism to receive custodial sentences. How did the State ensure that these minors were fully protected from any form of ill-treatment or abuse, and that they had continuous access to legal assistance, family contact, and appropriate medical care? Did the State intend to review the necessity and proportionality of this amendment?
The Committee was deeply concerned by reports of a significant increase in the number of Palestinian children deprived of liberty, many under administrative or prolonged pre-trial detention. As of June 2025, the number reportedly reached a nine-year high, with the majority held without conviction. Reports received by the Committee described recurring instances of ill-treatment, including solitary confinement, painful restraints, denial of basic needs, and restrictions on family contact or access to legal counsel. How did the State ensure that minors in administrative detention were protected from torture or violent interrogation, and that they were held separately from adults in all circumstances? What measures were in place to guarantee that these children had regular and confidential access to lawyers, medical care, and family contact? For minors detained under the unlawful combatants act, how were procedural safeguards and conditions of detention aligned with international standards and applied equally to all children?
The State’s excessive use of pre-trial detention remained a matter of concern for the Committee. Detainees could remain in custody for long periods before being charged or brought to trial, sometimes beyond the limits set by law. Allegations of prolonged shackling, denial of visits, and limited access to legal representatives remained among main concerns. What measures were in place to ensure that all detainees were brought promptly before a judge, ideally within 24 hours of arrest, and that they had immediate and confidential access to legal counsel and family contact? What was the average duration of such detention before charge or trial, and how many individuals were held beyond the legal limits? What independent bodies were currently overseeing detention facilities, and how were their findings used to strengthen accountability and improve conditions? How did the Government assess the overall situation of pre-trial detention, including in the occupied territories, and what reforms were being considered to bring practice fully in line with international standards of fairness and humane treatment?
The Committee acknowledged positively that the State report included detailed information on recent legislative and administrative reforms aimed at improving prison management and enforcement policy. However, various reports continued to highlight structural challenges, including overcrowding, inadequate sanitation and ventilation, limited access to natural light, and insufficient living space. According to data published by Prison Insider in 2024, Israel currently held 19,756 incarcerated persons, with an incarceration rate of 217 per 100,000 inhabitants and a prison density of 136 per cent.
What measures had been taken to improve material conditions in detention facilities, in particular to address overcrowding, sanitation, ventilation, and access to natural light, especially in older prisons? What independent monitoring and complaint mechanisms were currently operating within the prison system, and how were their findings used to ensure accountability and remedy violations? Could data be shared on the use of alternatives to detention, such as electronic supervision and conditional release, and whether these were equally accessible to minors, non-citizens, and Palestinian detainees?
The Committee had also received credible reports concerning the detention conditions of Palestinians from Gaza, describing overcrowded, unsanitary environments; limited access to food, clean water, and medical care; and severe restrictions on family visits and legal counsel. What steps had been taken to ensure that all detainees, including those from Gaza, were held in conditions consistent with humane treatment standards and that regular access to family, legal representatives, and medical care had been restored? Could updated information by provided on the conditions in migration detention centres, particularly at Saharonim Prison and the Yahalom facility at Ben Gurion Airport?
The use and scope of solitary confinement in Israel was a continued concern, with reports indicating that solitary confinement, including of minors, was sometimes applied primarily as a disciplinary measure or for purposes of punishment, rather than as an exceptional and strictly necessary measure for security reasons. Were there any legislative or regulatory measures adopted to limit or clarify the use of solitary confinement, particularly regarding its duration, purpose, and application to minors and other vulnerable groups, and how these aligned with international human rights standards? What mechanisms were currently in place to ensure the regular and independent review of solitary confinement decisions? How did the State ensure that isolation was not used as a punitive or prolonged measure, and that detainees had effective avenues to challenge such decisions? Had recent assessments or reforms been undertaken to review the list of disciplinary sanctions applicable within detention facilities?
The Committee appreciated the reforms described in the State report, particularly the modernisation of prison medical services and the administrative steps taken to improve access to care, which were welcome developments. However, reports received by the Committee still pointed to delays in accessing doctors, difficulties in obtaining independent or specialised treatment, and shortages in mental health services, especially for those at risk of self-harm.
How was timely and confidential access to healthcare ensured in practice? What safeguards protected the independence of medical staff and allowed them to act in line with professional ethics, free from interference by custodial authorities? Could detainees be examined by a doctor of their choice, and how were second opinions arranged in cases of alleged ill-treatment? Could more information be provided on the availability of mental health services in detention?
Ms. Racu highlighted a remarkable and unique initiative in Israel, supported by the World Health Organization, focusing on frontline mental health professionals who, while caring for others during the ongoing conflict, suffered trauma, burnout, and emotional exhaustion. The programme offered restorative workshops to enhance resilience and team cohesion, helping safeguard both the well-being of medical staff and the continuity of mental health services. This human rights-based approach represented a good practice that should be continued and replicated, given the exposure and responsibility of healthcare workers in crisis settings. How did the Government of Israel plan to ensure the continuation and possible expansion of this programme to protect the mental health and well-being of frontline healthcare workers? What measures were in place to monitor and reduce the psychological impact of the ongoing conflict on medical personnel and civilians, ensuring access to mental health services in line with the human rights obligations of the State?
The Committee remained concerned by continuing reports of deaths occurring in detention facilities, affecting both Palestinian and other detainees under the authority of the State party, including due to delayed or inadequate medical care, suicide, self-harm, and possible ill-treatment. How were preventive mechanisms implemented and evaluated in practice, including procedures to identify persons at risk of self-harm or suicide, the existence of safe and supervised accommodation for vulnerable detainees, and the training provided to prison staff to detect warning signs and respond appropriately to mental health crises? Could the delegation share updated and disaggregated data on deaths in custody over the past five years, including causes, locations, and the number of cases that had been subject to independent investigation?
The Committee acknowledged positive measures undertaken by the State party to address violence against women, including the amendment to the rights of victims of crime law, which allowed victims of sexual violence to choose the gender of their investigator. Nevertheless, the Committee remained deeply concerned about the persistence of intimate partner violence, femicide, so-called “honour crimes,” and widespread sexual and domestic violence, as well as high levels of sexual harassment. The Committee recalled with concern the findings of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which drew attention to serious and recurring incidents of sexual and gender-based violence affecting Palestinian women and girls, including during arrest, transfer and detention.
Could updated, disaggregated data on criminal complaints, investigations, prosecutions, and sanctions relating to acts of gender-based and sexual violence be provided? Could the State party provide details on recent legal policy and institutional measures adopted to prevent, investigate, and punish acts of gender-based violence, including in contexts of deprivation of liberty and armed conflict? What safeguards were in place for women and girls in detention?
Could Israel elaborate on its political will, coordination efforts, and allocation of resources dedicated to combatting gender-based violence against all women and girls, Israeli and Palestinian alike, without distinction of race, origin, or belief?
Despite the establishment of multiple oversight bodies, the investigation of torture and ill-treatment in Israel remained fragmented and inconsistent across institutions, including the Israel Security Agency, the Israel Defence Forces, and Police. Could further information be provided on the current functioning and coordination of investigative mechanisms and on measures taken to ensure independence, impartiality, and accountability in addressing allegations of torture and ill-treatment? Could the delegation provide updated and disaggregated data for the past five years on complaints of torture and ill-treatment submitted against members of these institutions, indicating how many led to criminal investigations, prosecutions and convictions, as well as disciplinary actions? What steps had been taken to address the structural fragmentation of investigative systems across security agencies, and to ensure that all complaints of torture and ill-treatment were investigated promptly, impartially, and by an independent body? What measures had been implemented to improve timeliness, transparency, and communication with complainants?
Ms. Racu said the Committee expressed hope that the ceasefire agreement of 9 October 2025 between Israel and Hamas would mark the end of hostilities, but also the beginning of a process of healing, accountability and justice. How did the State party intend to guarantee the full implementation of its obligations under the ceasefire agreement, ensuring that peace was maintained and that no acts of violence or reprisal occurred? Could the delegation elaborate on the measures taken to ensure that humanitarian assistance reached Gaza in a regular, and unhindered manner, and that international humanitarian actors were provided with safe and effective access to affected populations?
A Committee Expert said efforts to enhance law enforcement in the West Bank were failing. How many investigations on settler violence had been conducted and what were their results? What measures would Israel adopt to punish acts of violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank and Jerusalem?
Another Expert said State necessity was a doctrine which legitimised certain unlawful acts in certain circumstances. However, this was not applicable against the absolute prohibition of torture. Would the State party consider reviewing its position in this regard?
An Expert said the Committee took the matter of capital punishment seriously, even though it was aware it was not referenced in the Convention. A bill had potentially been passed which targeted a prospective group for executions. Could the delegation comment on this? Did Israel qualify the current conflict as an international armed conflict? What was being done to ensure compliance by uniformed services of proper application and respect for the Geneva Conventions?
Another Committee Expert said there were different views about obligations extra-territorially. In what ways did Israel see its obligations as different because the treaty did not apply in occupied territories? What was different because of what happened on 7 October?
One Expert asked if perspectives of gender and cultural diversities were reflected in prisons and other facilities? Could explanations and clarifications regarding Israel’s use of artificial intelligence in conflict be provided?
Responses by the Delegation
ITAMAR DONENFELD, Director General of the Ministry of Justice and Co-Head of the Delegation, said two members of the delegation, a husband and wife, Keith and Aviva Siegel, had been kidnapped by Hamas terrorists on 7 October 2023 and held captive for 484 days and 51 days respectively.
KEITH SIEGEL, former hostage, urged the Committee Experts to please do everything that they could so the terrorists could never do these acts again. He and his wife Aviva had been subjected to violence and abuse that they could never have imagined after being abducted from their house by armed terrorists, who injured Aviva during the abduction. They were held in a residential house with an opening into a tunnel, where they were sequestered with others from their community. He had witnessed the torture of a woman accused of being an Israel Defence Force member which haunted him to this day.
Aviva was returned after 51 days during the initial ceasefire, while Keith said he was kept imprisoned and abused by terrorists. Torture, violence and abuse were always present. He had been held in a school full of Palestinian civilians and was only allowed to go to the toilet twice a day. The Israel Defence Forces had warned them to evacuate, through a pamphlet written in Arabic, but Hamas ignored that warning. In total, Keith said he had been a 60-year-old man held alone, without other hostages for six months, totally in fear, with no knowledge of what happened to his loved ones. He had been denied the most basic of human rights, and had been starved and denied water. His elderly mother had passed away two months before his release; she did not get a chance to know he made it home and he did not get a chance to say goodbye.
AVIVA SIEGEL, former hostage, said she had been held for 51 days, during which she had been sure that her son had been killed by the terrorists. She saw that the Hamas terrorists had zip tied the hands of a boy from the community, and then while cutting him free, a terrorist cut the boy’s hands and smiled. The fear of death was constant and she lost 10 kilogrammes in 51 days due to not receiving enough food and water. The terrorists ate in front of them while depriving them of food. The hostages had witnessed the Hamas terrorists sexually assaulting women and girls and were not even allowed to comfort or help them. She had comforted them with love from her eyes. They were even forbidden from putting their feet out of the blanket if they were hot at night. They were sick from dirty water and had to wait to ask for permission to the bathroom, despite being in pain.
Aviva said when she was returned after 51 days, she was worried she would never see her husband again. Her family, including her five-year-old grandson, would cry every day. Sixty-four people from their community had been murdered. Hamas terrorists had played soccer with heads of humans and with the breasts of girls. Aviva said when she was returned, she had helped an 84-year-old woman who had suffered significant health complications due to her treatment by the terrorists, and it was because of her that that woman was still alive.
CLAUDE HELLER, Committee Chair, expressed sympathy to the two hostages on behalf of the Committee.
DANIEL MERON, Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Office at Geneva and Co-Head of the Delegation, thanked the two former hostages for sharing their testimony, which was reminiscent of so many of the hostages held in Gaza.
The delegation said the Inspectorate Unit had been established to gather information and submit information regarding the Israel Security Agency, and had been operating continuously throughout the 7 October war. The Inspectorate Unit had two main roles: to investigate complaints by detainees and to operate an oversight mechanism during Israel Security Agency interrogations. Complaints could be filed through several channels, including through a prison director or online. There were also forms in Arabic. The final verdict must be forwarded to the Inspectorate Unit for examination; 252 complaints had been received from 150 detainees, as some detainees filed more than one complaint.
The preliminary examination process included collecting evidence, reviewing security cameras, and investigating the relevant Israel Security Agency agents. A broadcast was operated during all interrogations and was inaccessible to Israel Security Agency personnel. They had no idea of when they were being observed. The system regularly underwent technological improvements to enhance its efficiency. Audiovisual supervision was conducted randomly, amounting to thousands of hours each year. To Israel’s knowledge, no other security agency in the world transmitted its interrogation live to an offsite body. The unit was made up of qualified individuals who had received various training in criminal investigations and could provide service in a variety of languages.
DANIEL MERON, Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Office at Geneva and Co-Head of the Delegation, said Israel was committed to its obligations under international law and international human rights law, including the Convention. Questions had been raised by the Committee which insinuated that Israel did not uphold its obligations in response to the atrocities committed by Hamas. The opposite was true, and this had been proven in the past two years. Senior political officials had consistently asserted Israel’s commitment to international law and the protection of civilians. Israel expected the international community to recognise the unprecedented challenges the country faced.
Regretfully, Mr. Meron said, some members of the Committee had relied on disinformation published by Special Rapporteur Francesa Albanese, and the Commission of Inquiry. Both mechanisms were notorious for their political agendas, anti-Semitic rhetoric, and justification of terrorism. Israel expected integrity, impartiality and neutrality.
The delegation said the Committee had stated wrongfully that the International Court of Justice found that it was plausible that Israel had committed acts of genocide in Gaza. This misrepresented the International Court of Justice’s order, and Israel corrected the Committee on this matter. Israel rejected the malicious accusation against it based on the genocide convention and did not see reason to elaborate. Israel maintained that the law of armed conflict applied to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including prohibitions of torture. Israel viewed that the conduct of the relevant Israeli agencies remained in full compliance with the prohibition of torture and cruel and inhumane and degrading law. Israeli law also prohibited these kinds of conduct. The right of all individuals to be protected from torture was observed under the applicable framework.
Israel rejected allegations of systematic use of sexual and gender-based violence. These were inconsistent with the Israel Security Forces strict legal and ethical framework, which explicitly prohibited all forms of gender-based violence. Oversight mechanisms were in place, as well as regulations that ensured detainees were treated with respect at all times. Incidents which deviated from this were thoroughly investigated. Allegations against Israel had emerged only after the revelation of these crimes committed by Hamas in 2024, part of the modus operandi of Francesa Albanese and the Commission of Inquiry, who took crimes committed by Hamas and attributed them to Israel. Israel rejected these claims, which were cynical manipulations, aimed at diminishing the gravity of the atrocities committed against Israeli civilians.
Acts defined as torture under the Convention, such as the infliction of physical harm, were criminalised under Israel’s penal law. Penalties included multiple years imprisonment. The penal law authorised monetary compensation to be awarded when an offender was sentenced. Victims were entitled to have a victim impact statement brought before the court, to ensure realisation of their rights. If the court awarded compensation to a minor, they would be paid a sum immediately by the court, regardless of whether the offender paid the money. This provision also applied in other situations.
Although several provisions of Israel’s legislation allowed for the death penalty, it had only been carried out twice since the establishment of the State and applied to war crimes committed during the Second World War, and crimes committed against the Jewish population during the Nazi regime, among others. Over the years, several bills approving the death penalty in extreme circumstances had been approved but had not advanced into legislation. The recent legal amendment, which stipulated that a minor who had been involved in terrorism, between the ages of 10 and 14, could be sentenced to imprisonment had not yet been enacted. The amendment also entailed that in very exceptional circumstances, minors under 14 could be placed in a juvenile prison, if they could not be placed in a closed residential facility.
The prevention of domestic violence law granted temporary provisions to help prevent cases of domestic violence. In 2022 the statute of limitation law was passed, extending the period of limitations for claims grounded in sexual offences, including for minors. A law was also passed granting victims of these crimes the right to rapidly seek compensation from the State and receive free legal aid without an eligibility test. As of 2024, there were 17 permanent shelters for battered women, with seven of these fully accessible to women with disabilities.
At the conclusion of the investigations conducted by the Inspectorate for Complaints against Israel Security Agency interrogation units, the findings were submitted to the supervisor, who decided whether there were sufficient grounds to open a criminal investigation. Decisions were issued on dozens of cases and some were closed without disciplinary procedures. In interrogations where special measures were used out of necessity, examinations were conducted, even if there was no complaint. This ensured a thorough examination in accordance with the necessity defence. The High Court of Justice had held that the agents of the Israel Security Agency did not have the authority to employ certain methods during an investigation. Several criminal investigations had been opened in recent years, with most cases not leading to criminal investigations. In some cases, disciplinary measures were decided with warnings of reprimands by the head of the Israel Security Agency.
A judicial exclusion doctrine had been developed, allowing the court to rule on the admissibility of evidence obtained unlawfully. In a recent case, included in the report, confessions taken from a minor defendant were excluded and some of the indictments were withdrawn as a result.
In recent years, Israel had taken steps to protect ideologically motivated offences involving many units. Considerable efforts had been taken to enhance law enforcement in the West Bank, including through increased funds, arrest operations and additional personnel. Periodic discussions were held with senior representatives of relevant institutions, to enhance the prevention, investigation and prosecutions of such crimes. Relevant authorities responded to these offences in real time, as rapidly as possible, including the Israel Defence Forces removing people committing these crimes from the area. In relevant areas, patrols and deployments had been increased to reduce friction. Through the issuance of restriction orders, a number of suspects had been distanced from the areas. Ideologically motivated offences committed against Palestinians in the West Bank were a minority; the majority of offences were committed by Palestinians against Israelis.
The Israel Police operated educational programmes ensuring that human rights values were incorporated into training, including at the National Police Academy. The curriculum was based on the human rights conventions to which Israel was a party. A unit on gender equality and cultural diversity was established within the police in 2019, conducting training and awareness raising on this important topic.
A detainee was entitled to meet and consult with a lawyer. In exceptional circumstances, a maximum delay of 48 hours could be granted if the officer was convinced a postponement was necessary for safeguarding human life. A police officer who had instigated an arrest was obligated to clarify to the detainee the reason and grounds for their arrest in a language which they understood.
Several measures had been taken to eradicate crime and violence against the Arab population, including 15 new police investigator positions and reinforcing existing stations. Persons with intellectual disabilities involved in criminal cases were eligible to be questioned by specially trained social workers, and such investigations were also conducted in Arabic and other languages when required.
Current inmates could file complaints in a sealed envelope which needed to be delivered to the Warden’s Investigation Unit immediately. Once the Warden’s Investigation Unit completed its investigation, the case was either closed, or transferred to the State Attorney office. Between 7 October 2023 and end of September 2025, 397 claims of ill-treatment of security detainees were made, among which 172 complaints were filed regarding Gazan inmates in the custody of the Israel Prison Service; 158 cases were transferred to the State Attorney’s office, with 20 currently remaining under investigation.
In the case of death during detention, the supervisor of the facility must immediately inform the police of the death, which must be investigated no later than 15 days after the death occurred.
The Israel Prison Service was responsible for the treatment and oversight of all categories of prisoners, including those involved in the 7 October attacks. The Service upheld the absolute prohibition of torture, inhumane and degrading treatment and this was implemented consistently in respect to all detainees. General living conditions included proper nutrition and water, medical care, access to hot showers, and access to daylight and fresh air. Particular attention was given to the detention of vulnerable groups, including women and minors, with necessary adjustments made to ensure their safety and wellbeing. A special directive had been issued regarding how the Israel Prison Service interacted with the female population, including strip searches against women conducted by women. All prisoners received three daily meals, which had been approved by nutrition experts.
Every detainee and prisoner was entitled to medical care, which was provided by qualified medical personnel in all detention facilities. Each prison operated an inhouse dental clinic. Every inmate was assessed by a physician upon entry, and could receive further medical treatment depending on the results of the assessment. Ten psychiatrists were employed by the Israel Prison Service and 20,000 psychiatric evaluations were conducted annually. Detainees at risk of suicide were placed under observation, or they could be transferred to a special supervision wing.
A new division had been established for alternative incarceration, intended to expand and adapt the use of noncustodial measures, including electronic monitoring. In 2024, the number of these devices was increased by 500. Home confinement was another option, where certain inmates could serve the remainder of their sentence under house arrest. Detention conditions were monitored by the Israel Prison Service and by a wide variety of independent external bodies.
The Israel Prison Service was required to grant any authorised inspector access to their facilities. In May 2025, the Israel Prison Service established a new service centre which aimed to improve the level of service provided to the legal community, and strengthen their cooperation with the Israel Prison Service. The Service maintained a zero-tolerance policy of harm to detainees. All personnel received training on topics such as the imprisonment of minors and those with disabilities. In cases involving the death of an inmate, a commission of inquiry should be established immediately. No member of the Commission should serve in the same unit of regional demand where the incident occur. The findings and conclusions of the inquiry were submitted to the Authority and would be referred to the disciplinary branch where appropriate. Through this mechanism, the Israel Prison Service reaffirmed its commitment to the full implementation of humanitarian law and human rights law in the context of detention and custody.
The horrible atrocities committed by Hamas during the 7 October massacre had not changed the Israel Defence Forces’ commitment to international law. The context for Israeli detention actions in Gaza was due to the extensive war in the last two years. During the war, the Israel Defence Forces had detained Gazan individuals reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorist activities. Claims that the Israel Defence Forces systematically mistreated detainees were false and did not represent the situation on the ground.
During the Israel Defence Forces subsequent operations in Gaza following 7 October, detainees underwent an initial screening on the ground to determine if additional questioning was necessary. This was difficult as terrorists in Gaza embedded themselves within the civilian population, making them difficult to identify. Anyone taken in for questioning who was found not to require further detention was released, while others where further questioning was required were transferred to another facility. Israel’s unlawful combatants law was written in strict congruity with the Geneva Convention, recognising the possibility of holding individuals who posed a threat in armed conflict in detention. This law granted detainees the right to meet with legal consul; however, this could be delayed if there were concrete and serious risks, including that terrorist detainees could use these meetings to transmit information to terrorist groups in Gaza.
The Israel Defence Forces had operated two detention facilities during the war; one originally for short-term holdings, adjusted for extended detention during the war, and another facility built during the war for extended detention. Before the war, the Israel Defence Forces were not the authority mandated to hold prisoners from Gaza for an extended period but had to adjust to this role, in response to a war which started unexpectedly.
The Israel Defence Forces had employed vast resources to ensure the thousands of prisoners under their custody were provided with adequate living conditions. Detainees were provided with ongoing medical attention throughout their stay in Israel Defence Forces detention facilities. Claims regarding conditions in Israel Defence Forces facilities, or alleged misconduct, had been regularly forwarded to relevant bodies to be addressed. Claims had often been unfounded, as part of the disinformation campaign. The Israel Defence Forces rejected allegations of systematic abuse detainees but took all claims seriously. A robust system of oversight was in place to ensure detainees were held lawfully, including through the operation of CCTV systems. Measures were taken in individual cases, such as a case when an officer had excessively restrained a detainee.
Since the appointment of a designated inspector of Israel Defence Forces facilities in May 2024, multiple visits had been carried out. There were several other external oversight mechanisms which complimented the Israel Defence Forces justice system. The Israel Defence Forces were committed to investigating and prosecuting the misconduct of professionals. To date, 13 criminal investigations regarding alleged detainee mistreatment had been ordered, with one case already tried in a military tribunal and the conviction of a solider. There had been known instances of deaths of detainees in Israel Defence Forces custody, including those who came from the battlefield and arrived with existing conditions. In the case of each death, a criminal case was launched, with many still ongoing.
Administrative detention was only used as a last resort against an individual posing a threat against the State. Administrative detainees were entitled to legal representation of their choice. The military courts unit was independent from the Israel Defence Forces chain of command. In the past year, district military courts had closed cases where available intelligence concluded that the persons did not warrant further detention, and had ordered the release of detainees. There had been an increase in administrative detention over the past two years, reflecting the sharp rise in terrorist activity, whereby preventive security measures were necessary to protect civilians. These increasing numbers were in no way indicative of arbitrary detention, but instead of the heightened security situation.
Israel Defence Forces had issued and reinforced strict directives to ensure the correct treatment of all detainees, including women and minors. A small number of orders had been issued against women detainees in Gaza, under international humanitarian law. Under regulations, the detention of women and minors was only carried out with specific permission. It needed to be remembered that Hamas systematically recruited and exploited minors, sometimes as young as 15, for use in combat.
Israel did not use any artificial intelligence systems which automatically suggested and engaged targets; these were all conducted by human personnel who ensured international humanitarian law was upheld. Regarding the alleged abuse of a detainee by a group of five soldiers; this case was ongoing. The relevant unit had been disassembled and replaced following the revelation of the alleged incident.
For decades, Israel’s judiciary had opened its doors to Palestinians wishing the bring cases against the State of Israel. Palestinians had continued to conduct legal proceedings in Israel even in times of hostilities.
In the past few years, the child online protection bureau had made great efforts to identify relevant suspects, and some investigations had resulted in major inditements against those who had committed crimes against children.
Questions by Committee Experts
PETER VEDEL KESSING, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said he had been touched to listen to Keith and Aviva’s stories. What they had experienced was horrific and a blatant violation of international law. Mr. Kessing thanked them for their courage to speak up and wished them the best in the future.
It had been reported to the Committee many times that Palestinians were exposed to abuse and torture during interrogations, including the use of tightly locked handcuffs, urination, humiliation and denial of religious rights, among others. However, Israel had disputed these claims today. Why should the Committee not believe the reports received from five alternative and reliable institutions?
It had been reported that Israeli ministers publicly endorsed and encouraged practice amounting ill-treatment, including statements dehumanising Palestinians. What steps had been taken to investigate such statements?
Mr. Kessing thanked Israel delegation members for their detailed explanation of the State’s institutions. How many Israeli officials had been found guilty of committing torture or ill-treatment against Palestinian detainees and what were the sentences?
ANNA RACU, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the Committee was aware of information manipulation and political sensitivity, both in relation to the military operation in Gaza and more broadly. Could the delegation provide specific information on aspects such as the independence of medical personnel regarding cases of acts of violence by prison staff. How were such injuries reported and documented? What were the outcomes of such investigations? What was the situation of minors held in administrative detention? Could the delegation reply regarding the issue of solidarity confinement for minors?
Ms. Racu appreciated efforts to provide free legal aid to victims and survivors. Could data and figures on cases of gender-based violence be provided, including acts of sexual violence among female prisoners? The constructive engagement of Israel with the Committee and the United Nations was important and appreciated. How was it ensured that humanitarian aid entered Gaza and that the relevant bodies could access those in need? Could the delegation clarify the reason for limited access to detention facilities? What steps were being taken to ensure that independent monitoring bodies such as the International Committee of the Red Cross could conduct visits to all places of detention? Could lasting peace and security be achieved by force alone? History showed that this was not possible. Dialogue and compliance with the rule of law were essential for achieving lasting peace.
A Committee Expert said terrorism constituted one of the most serious threats to international peace and security, and must be condemned. However, States must ensure that any measures to combat terrorism complied with their obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law.
Another Committee Expert said there were Israeli non-governmental organization reports, including videos broadcast worldwide, showing a Minister visiting Palestinian prisoners lying on the floor in humiliating positions. The Expert had also seen a video today of three soldiers accused of raping a prisoner which was shown in a court, with many people rejoicing what had happened. A statement made by senior officials stating that torture was never acceptable was needed; could the delegation comment on this?
Another Expert said his question yesterday had referred to an official release by the Knesset regarding a bill in favour of the death penalty. What did this mean? The bill was discriminatory against prospective persons to be executed.
A Committee Expert asked how did Israel determine which United Nations officials were politically motivated? Were reports of violence skyrocketing in the West Bank accurate?
Responses by the Delegation
DANIEL MERON, Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Office at Geneva and Co-Head of the Delegation, said Isarel refuted the claim of systematic and widespread abuse and cases of torture and ill-treatment. In an exception case of an individual breaking the law, they needed to be held to account. Claiming these exceptional cases were systematic was false. Israel deplored the implied parallel drawn between hostages and detainees.
The delegation said the use of custody for the purpose of removal was done only as a last resort. A person staying illegally in Israel could be released for certain reasons. Under a pilot project, removal hearings were being recorded, as a way to learn lessons and improve existing procedures. Custodial decisions were subject to judicial review. In cases concerning children, the best interest of the child was a key consideration, and their opinion was granted due consideration.
Israel was facing a high number of asylum applications relative to its size. Asylum seekers were not removed until their applications were reviewed, subject to non-refoulement. A new provision in the asylum procedure mandated that if an applicant claimed to be a victim of torture, the interview needed to be conducted with special sensitivity to avoid victimisation. Children with no legal civil status were also entitled to urgent health services.
All detainees were registered upon their intake as a regular proceeding. Issues regarding detention were regularly reviewed by the Supreme Court. Where needed, family members could petition the courts to provide information on the legality and grounds for detention.
International human rights conventions were implemented through a wide range of legal instruments. Customary international law would apply as long as it did not conflict with Israeli laws. Israel had an internal mechanism to establish the concluding observations of the human rights committees which were translated into Hebrew and made public.
DANIEL MERON, Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Office at Geneva and Co-Head of the Delegation, said there was a vicious cycle of sources emanating from Gaza portraying incorrect information as fact. The data coming out of Gaza came from the so-called Ministry of Health, an organ of Hamas. When a Minister in Israel made a declaration on a certain policy, several steps applied until the policy was implemented, ensuring policies aligned with Israel’s obligations under international law.
The delegation said Israel fully recognised the importance of humanitarian assistance in Gaza and continued to assist a wide range of actors to expand the flow of assistance to Gaza. However, Israel had presented credible information showing that the United Nations Relief Works Agency in Palestine and the Near East had employed thousands of persons related to Hamas. Israel had taken major steps to maintain the facilitation of aid in the Gaza Strip even after the removal of the Agency.
The Commission of Inquiry had delegitimised Israel and its choice of members confirmed its partiality. One of its members had made anti-Semitic comments. The latest mandate that Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese received was denied by many countries due to her anti-Semitic position throughout her first mandate.
Closing Remarks
CLAUDE HELLER, Committee Chair, said the dialogue held with the State of Israel had been characterised by its frankness. The Committee was not a court and did not hand down sentences but addressed the issues at hand pertaining to the Convention. This dialogue needed to be seen as an opportunity to rise and address challenges. The Committee recognised that 7 October 2023 was one of the most traumatic events for the State of Israel, and understood very well the trauma the country had gone through. Israel was urged to look at the dialogue as an opportunity to revise and reconsider. Mr. Heller believed the Committee could continue an ongoing dialogue with Israel.
ITAMAR DONENFELD, Director General of the Ministry of Justice of Israel and Co-Head of the Delegation, thanked the Committee for its engagement over the past two days. Throughout the dialogue, Israel had demonstrated its full commitment to the Convention through facts, data, legal safeguards and robust oversight mechanisms. Israel had also addressed and refuted false accusations. Mr. Donenfeld thanked Keith and Aviva Siegel, the brave survivors of Hamas brutality for their statements. The Committee was called on to condemn the atrocities, to acknowledge Hamas’ responsibility, to support the release of all hostages, and to ensure its work remained free of political bias.
DANIEL MERON, Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Office at Geneva and Co-Head of the delegation, thanked the Committee for the in-depth dialogue, as well as all those who had made the dialogue possible.
___________
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CAT25.010E