Nasser Murad Safi, 15, was shot by Israeli soldiers with live ammunition breaking his leg during stone-throwing clashes between Palestinian youngsters and Israeli soldiers. Credit: Mel Frykberg/IPS

By Mel Frykberg
RAMALLAH, West Bank, Feb 15 2015 (IPS)

Fourteen-year-old Malak al Khatib, one of the youngest Palestinian detainees and one of only a handful of girls, was released from an Israeli prison on Feb. 13 into the arms of emotional family members and supporters after being incarcerated in an Israeli prison for two months on “security offences”.

Details of what happened to the Palestinian minor were made public only after an Israeli gag order on the case was lifted on appeal after a global campaign for her release.

The slightly built, dark-haired girl, from the town of Beitin near Ramallah, was arrested in December last year and later charged with stone-throwing and possession of a knife. However, al Khatib says the confessions were coerced under duress during interrogation."[Palestinian] children have been threatened with death, physical violence, solitary confinement and sexual assault, against themselves or a family member" – UNICEF

Al Khatib was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, a suspended sentence of three months and fined 6,000 shekels (approximately 1,500 dollars).

According to volunteer organisation Military Court Watch, 151 Palestinian children are currently being held in Israeli detention for “security offences” in the Occupied Territories and within Israel.

The group added that 47 percent of these children were being held in jails inside Israel in contravention of the Geneva Convention because this limits the ability of family and legal representatives from the West Bank and Gaza to visit them.

Defence for Children International Palestine (DCIP) says that in December last year 10 Palestinian children aged between 10 and 15 were incarcerated. However, children as young as eight have also been arrested by Israeli soldiers or police. According to DCIP, Israeli forces arrest about 1,000 children every year in the occupied West Bank.

However, it is not only the large numbers of Palestinian children arrested which is of concern to human rights organisations but also their treatment during incarceration.

In 2013, the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF) was attacked by Israeli critics after releasing a report title ‘Children in Israeli Military Detention’, which slammed the Israeli authorities for using “intimidation, threats and physical violence to coerce confessions out of Palestinian children.”

Ahmed Othman Safi, 17, bears the scars after his skull was fractured by the back of a gun as Israeli soldiers were arresting him. Credit: Mel Frykberg/IPS

“Children have been threatened with death, physical violence, solitary confinement and sexual assault, against themselves or a family member,” the report said.

IPS spoke to two Palestinian boys from the Jelazon refugee camp, near Ramallah, who were beaten, abused during interrogation and jailed on allegations of throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at Israeli security forces and settlers.

One hundred heavily armed Israeli soldiers, their faces masked, broke down the door and stormed the home of Khalil Khaled Nakhli, 17, in the early hours of Aug. 11 last year, terrifying his six younger brothers and sisters.

“My arm was broken after the soldiers beat me as they arrested me. They accused me of throwing stones at Israeli settlers from the Beit El settlement near Jelazon camp,” Nakhli told IPS.

Nakhli was taken to an Israeli prison where he was roughed up during interrogation and eventually sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, despite refusing to admit to the charges against him.

The home of Nakhli’s friend Ahmed Othman Safi, 17, was similarly stormed in the early hours of Sep. 7 last year. This time the soldiers used explosives to blow the door open.

Safi was left bloody and his skull fractured when the arresting soldiers used the back of their guns to club him on the head. An inch-wide indentation, where the hair refuses to grow, remains on Safi’s skull to this day.

“I was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment even though they failed to force me to confess to anything,” said Safi.

Their treatment has only further angered the boys. “We all feel bitter at the way we were treated and this exacerbates our anger at living under occupation,” Safi told IPS.

Palestinian minors are treated harshly in comparison with how Israeli minors are treated following arrest.

“Two children, one Jewish and one Palestinian, who are accused of committing the same act, such as stone throwing, will receive substantially different treatment from two separate legal systems,” the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) said in a recently released report titled ‘One Rule, Two Legal Systems: Israel’s Regime of Laws in the West Bank’.

“The Israeli child will be afforded the extensive rights and protections granted to minors under Israeli law. His Palestinian counterpart will be entitled to limited rights and protections, which are not sufficient to ensure his physical and mental wellbeing and which do not sufficiently meet his unique needs as a minor,” said the report.

Moreover, in many cases, the criminal law applying to Palestinian minors is stricter and even more severe than the one applied to Israeli adults.

“If Malak al Khatib had been arrested for violent activity as an Israeli child she would have received certain rights. These were denied to her for being Palestinian,” ACRI spokesperson Nuri Moskovich told IPS.

Decades of ‘temporary’ Israeli military rule in the Occupied Territories have given rise to two separate and unequal systems of law that discriminate between Israelis and Palestinians. The legal differentiation is not restricted to security or criminal matters, but touches upon almost every aspect of daily life.

“A series of military decrees, legal rulings and legislative amendments have resulted in a situation whereby Israeli citizens living in the Occupied Territories remain under the jurisdiction of Israeli law and the Israeli court system, with all the benefits that this confers,” said ACRI.

“By contrast, Palestinians in the West Bank are subject to much stricter military legal law – military orders that have been issued by Israeli generals since 1967.”

Edited by Phil Harris    

A typical cellblock at Guantanamo's Camp Delta. Credit: public domain

By Joe Hitchon
WASHINGTON, Mar 13 2013 (IPS)

In an unusual public testimony, the U.S. government has publicly stated that no “indefinite detention” is taking place among detainees at the military prison in Guantánamo Bay.

“The United States only detains individuals when that detention is lawful and does not intend to hold any individual longer than is necessary,” Michael Williams, a senior legal advisor for the State Department, told a hearing at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

The testimony took place Tuesday as a panel of human rights lawyers appealed before an international human rights body over what they called an “unfolding humanitarian crisis” at the military prison, calling for an end to ongoing human rights violations they say are being committed against the detainees.

The hearing, at the Organisation of American States headquarters here in Washington, marked the first time since President Barack Obama’s re-election that the U.S. government has had to publicly answer questions concerning Guantánamo Bay. Legal representatives for the detainees also presented disturbing eyewitness accounts of prisoner despair at the facility, brought on by prolonged indefinite detention and harsh conditions that has led to a sustained hunger strike involving more than 100 prisoners at the U.S. base in Cuba.

Established in 2002, the Guantánamo Bay military prison held, at its height, more than 700 suspects of terrorism. The facility currently holds 166 prisoners, of whom 90 – most of them Yemenis – have reportedly been cleared for repatriation, while another 36 are due to be prosecuted in federal courts, although those trials have yet to take place.

The remaining are being held indefinitely without trial because evidence of their past ties to terrorist groups is unlikely to be admissible in court. In some cases, this is reportedly due to its acquisition by torture, while in other cases because the U.S. government believes that the suspects would return to extremist activities if they were to be released.

The IACHR has repeatedly called for the closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention centre, and has requested permission to meet with the men detained there. The U.S. government has failed to allow the hemispheric rights body permission to make such a visit, however.

The IACHR held Tuesday’s hearing to learn more about the unfolding humanitarian crisis at the Guantánamo prison. It also focused on new components to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), signed earlier this year, which has been criticised for authorising indefinite detention and restricts the transfer of Guantánamo detainees.

Tuesday’s hearing saw testimony from experts in law, health and international policy, covering the psychological impact of indefinite detention, deaths of some suspects at Guantánamo, the lack of access to fair trials, and U.S. policies that have restricted the prison’s closure.

On taking office four years ago, President Obama famously promised to close the prison and ordered an end to certain interrogation tactics that rights groups called “torture”, including “extraordinary rendition” to third countries known to use torture. Yet he has since relied to a much greater extent on drone strikes against “high value” suspected terrorists from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, while failing to close the prison.

“In the 2008 campaign, both [presidential candidate John] McCain and Obama were squarely opposed to Guantánamo and agreed that this ugly hangover from the Bush/Cheney era had to be abandoned,” Omar Farah, staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), told IPS. “But four years later, the political whims have completely reversed and there is almost unanimity that Guantánamo needs to remain open aside from occasional platitudes from the president.”

Yet Farah is clear in his view that reversing this trend is still well within President Obama’s power.

“This is something that really calls for leadership from the president – he needs to decide if he wants Guantánamo to be part of his legacy,” Farah says.

“If the U.S. isn’t willing to charge someone in a fair process and can’t produce proper evidence of their crimes, then those prisoners have to be released. There is just no other way to have a democratic system. We’ve never had this kind of an alternative system of justice, and yet that’s what we have in Guantánamo.”

Pervasive health crisis

Human rights activists claim the Obama administration has not only broken his promise to rapidly close Guantánamo, but that his administration has also extended some of the worst aspects of the system. They point to the administration’s continuance of indefinite detention without charge or trial, employing illegitimate military commissions to try some suspects, and blocking accountability for torture.

At Tuesday’s hearings, the State Department’s Williams made extensive note of the health facilities and services that the U.S. government has made available for the detainees. And while critics do admit that the government facilities do meet international standards for detainees’ physical needs, they note that the mere fact of indefinite detention inflicts a toll all its own.

“The hopelessness and despair caused by indefinite detention is causing an extremely pressing and pervasive health crisis at Guantánamo,” Kristine Huskey, a lawyer with Physicians for Human Rights, an advocacy group, told IPS.

“A person held in indefinite detention is a person deprived of information about their own fate. They are in custody without knowing when, if ever, they will be released. Additionally, they do not know if they will be charged with crimes, receive a trial, or ever see their families again. If they have been abused or mistreated, they also do not know if this will happen again.”

At Tuesday’s hearing, however, Williams refused even to admit that indefinite detention was taking place at Guantánamo. CCR’s Farah called the whole experience “very disheartening”.

“It was shocking – they explicitly denied that there is indefinite detention, despite the fact that most of the prisoners there have been there for more than a decade without charge or trial,” Farah said. “So we are looking for the IACHR to remain actively engaged and hope that they will continue to put pressure on the U.S. government to comply with their international legal obligations toward these prisoners.”

Farah says the CCR wants to see Guantánamo closed and all prisoners Washington does not intend to charge with crimes to be allowed to return home or be sent to a safe country. “That’s just a base level international legal requirement,” he said.

An inmate at the Manus asylum seekers detention centre in Papua New Guinea. Credit: Australian Department of Immigration.

By Catherine Wilson
SYDNEY, Jan 30 2013 (IPS)

Papua New Guinean opposition leader Belden Namah has launched legal proceedings against an Australian detention centre for asylum seekers in Manus province of this South Pacific island nation.

Namah argues that the detention centre is illegal and the conditions there are inhumane. The move adds further weight to international human rights concerns about Australia’s offshore immigration detention policy and could pave the way for closure of the centre.

Following an agreement with Papua New Guinea, the Australian government reopened the detention facility in November last year as part of its widely criticised ‘Pacific Solution’ to increased numbers of asylum seekers arriving by boat in Australian waters.

Under the policy, some of those claiming refugee status in Australia are forcibly removed and confined in remote detention camps in the Pacific states Nauru and Papua New Guinea.

Namah claims the detention centre at Lombrum naval base on Los Negros Island, next to the main Manus Island of Manus province breaches Section 42 of the Papua New Guinea constitution which states that no person can be detained indefinitely unless they have committed a crime.

“We challenge the right of the government to force people seeking refugee status in Australia to enter Papua New Guinea to be illegally and indefinitely detained under inhumane conditions,” Namah said in a public statement.

“We are filing injunctions to have the current detainees released and to prevent the government from receiving or detaining any more asylum seekers from Australia.”

Namah’s move is supported by the governor of the National Capital District, Powes Parkop, and by the shadow minister for petroleum and energy, Francis Potape.

The court hearing date is yet to be announced.

Ian Rintoul of the Australia-based Refugee Action Coalition (RAC) told IPS that the development was “a step forward for human rights in Papua New Guinea and Australia” and also important in the light that “the Australian Government has drawn PNG and Nauru into a situation where they could be violating the Refugee Convention.”

Dr Graham Thom, spokesperson for Amnesty International in Australia, told IPS the challenge was “very important, particularly in regard to the human rights issues being highlighted, which we are also very concerned about.

“The Australian Government is still primarily responsible for these asylum seekers in offshore detention facilities, but Papua New Guinea also has responsibilities for the way these people are being treated,” he said.

Papua New Guinea has acceded to the 1951 Refugee Convention with reservations and ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but not yet the Convention against Torture.

The Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship declined to comment.

Australia receives a fraction of the total asylum claims in industrialised countries, with 11,488 in 2011, compared to 66,800 in Southern Europe and 74,000 in the United States. During the first half of 2012, Australia received 7,879 asylum applications, while France received 25,361 and Germany 22,477.

There has been a mandatory immigration detention policy in Australia since 1992 supported by the Migration Act 1958 which authorises detention of non-citizens without immigration status. In all 7,633 people were incarcerated last year.

The majority are found to be genuine refugees.

The detention centre in Manus first operated from 2001-2004 under Liberal prime minister John Howard. The current Australian Labour government overturned its previous objections to the forced detention of asylum seekers last year and reintroduced the policy.

It now claims that the ‘no advantage’ of offshore detention will dissuade asylum seekers from embarking on hazardous sea journeys and ‘wreck the people smuggling business.’ Last year 259 boats carrying asylum seekers entered Australian waters, an increase from 69 in 2011.

In return, Papua New Guinea’s Manus province will receive Australian aid worth eight million dollars.

But despite Australia’s claims that detention facilities in the Pacific islands will be part of a “sustainable and effective regional cooperation framework” guided by humanitarian principles and supported by the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), these remain unilateral initiatives.

The UNHCR policy is that “detention as a penalty for illegal entry and/or as a deterrent to seeking asylum” contravenes international human rights laws. It refuses to be party to Australia’s offshore programme.

Currently 238 men, women and children from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka and Iran are interned on Los Negros. Photographs by detainees show them living behind a high security fence in container huts with no windows, doors or privacy in a tropical climate where temperatures reach 34 degrees C, with 95 percent humidity and inadequate protection against endemic malaria.

The Australian Department of Immigration says “the standard of accommodation and amenities at the temporary detention facility on Manus Island are in line with local standards and living conditions.”

Earlier this month, the RAC reported a hunger strike in the Manus camp, several cases of self-harm, attempted suicide and an attempted escape by two men. Suicidal behaviour by men and women in immigration detention is 41 and 26 times higher than the national average, according to the Mental Health Council of Australia.

In the wake of Namah’s announcement, Amnesty International has announced plans to visit the Manus centre in March to report on Australia’s compliance with international human rights laws.

“Foremost, we will be concerned to assess the treatment of children, the situation of families and unaccompanied minors, and the system of asylum processing, which should be happening as quickly as possible,” Thom told IPS.

He remains concerned that Australia’s offshore detention policy is at risk of violating Article 31 of the Refugee Convention, which states that people should not be punished on the basis of the way in which they have sought asylum, and Article 33 on non-refoulement, which guards against forcing people to decide to return to countries where their lives may be in danger by providing intolerable conditions of detention.

The Australian government has announced that during the last five months 213 Sri Lankan, four Iraqi and two Iranian asylum seekers, most faced with detention on Nauru, “voluntarily” returned to their countries of origin.

After an inspection of Australia’s detention facility on Nauru, Amnesty International reported its concerns about unlawful detention, inhumane conditions and poor standards of water and sanitation. (END)