Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONTINUES CONSIDERATION OF ISRAEL'S REPORT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
15 July 1998
Share
AFTERNOON
HR/CT/98/9
15 July 1998
The Committee on Human Rights this afternoon continued its consideration of an Israeli report on how that country was implementing the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
During the debate, Committee experts widely commented on the implementation of the state of emergency which has been in force since May 1948 and on the administrative detention practised by the Israeli authorities against Palestinians.
As one of the 140 States parties to the Covenant, Israel is obligated to submit periodic reports to the Committee on its efforts to implement the provisions of the treaty.
When the Committee reconvenes on Thursday, 16 July, at 10 a.m., it will conclude its consideration of the report of Israel.
Discussion of Report
The debate this afternoon began with comments by Committee experts regarding the responses of the Israeli delegation during the morning meeting. One expert said that the provisions of the Covenant were not applicable under all Israeli jurisdiction and their territorial application was limited. The same expert requested more information on the human rights situation in all parts of the Israeli-occupied territories.
Comments were also made on the continued practice of the state of emergency by Israel for fifty years. One expert suggested that emergency legislation should be minimized and that the use of legislation enacted in relation to the emergency law should be revised and discarded in accordance with the evolution of the situation. Another expert said the state of emergency was renewed by the Knesset without due revision of the general situation. A separate legal group should be formed to recommend to Parliament which emergency legislation should be carried forward or derogated.
When it ratified the Covenant, Israel had declared that since its establishment, the country had been the victim of continuous threats and attacks on its very existence as well as on the life and property of its citizens. The state of emergency, which was proclaimed in May 1948, has remained in force ever since.
Committee experts also requested the delegation to consider its reservation on matters of personal status which in Israel were governed by the religious law of the parties concerned. Article 23 of the Convention stipulates that States parties should take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, both during the marriage and at its dissolution.
It was also suggested that Israel draft a Bill of Rights and other safeguards to avoid unnecessary abuse of administrative detention under which more than five thousand Palestinians were held.
In response to oral questions posed by Committee members during the morning and afternoon meetings, the Israeli officials said their Government was acting in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Laws and that the measures implemented were carried out in a transparent manner.
With regards to the reporting obligation of the civil and political rights situation beyond Israel's territories, the delegation said that since Israel was not practising effective administration in these territories, it was difficult to reflect the situation. For instance, southern Lebanon was not under Israeli Government control except for self-defence operations against terrorists.
The delegation said that Hebrew and Arabic were official languages of Israel. However, the knowledge of some Hebrew was obligatory when applying for Israeli nationality. The official use of Arabic was also increasing.
Non-drafting of Arabs into the army was not considered as an act of discrimination, the Israeli delegation said. The national military service of Israel did not include Arabs, however, there was a tendency to follow a universal drafting to include these segments of the society.
Individuals could lodge complaints claiming that they had been victims of violations of their human rights, the delegation said, adding that the Office of the Ombudsperson was charged with receiving such complaints.
The delegation said that 93 per cent of land was under Government control while the Jewish National Fund disposed of its own land to be distributed for the settlement of Jews. The Fund was established in 1901 to buy land in Israel for Jews around the world.
With regards to the drafting of a Bill of Rights, the delegation said that a similar law had already been initiated in the past, but the human dignity clause of the Basic Laws had been used instead. Nevertheless, the Government was hopefully moving in the direction of drafting a Bill of Rights similar to that of Canada.
In response to the remaining written questions prepared by Committee members beforehand, the delegation said that the open-fire regulations applicable to soldiers in the Israeli Defence Forces were based on principle analogues to those incumbent upon the Israeli Police and Border Guards. A soldier might fire only as a last resort when all other means of apprehending and arresting the suspect had failed. Since the end of the Intifada, the Government had paid out approximately $30 million to Palestinian petitioners as compensation. During the last 10 years, about 50 indictments had taken place against soldiers not acting in accordance with military regulations. The acts by those soldiers had resulted in deaths of persons, including children.
Regarding the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the delegation said that Israel maintained that the basic human rights of all persons under its jurisdiction should never be violated, regardless of the crimes that the individuals might have committed. However, Israel recognized its responsibility to protect the lives of all its citizens and residents from harm at the hands of terrorist organizations. The Israeli authorities had adopted strict rules and guidelines for the handling of interrogations.
Concerning administrative detention under the state of emergency, the delegation said that administrative detention was connected to State security and public safety. If ordered by the head of the army, the detention might be for only 48 hours, and might not be renewed. However, if ordered by the Minister of Defence, the detention might be for a renewable period of up to six months. Administrative detention orders were frequently challenged in court.
HR/CT/98/9
15 July 1998
The Committee on Human Rights this afternoon continued its consideration of an Israeli report on how that country was implementing the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
During the debate, Committee experts widely commented on the implementation of the state of emergency which has been in force since May 1948 and on the administrative detention practised by the Israeli authorities against Palestinians.
As one of the 140 States parties to the Covenant, Israel is obligated to submit periodic reports to the Committee on its efforts to implement the provisions of the treaty.
When the Committee reconvenes on Thursday, 16 July, at 10 a.m., it will conclude its consideration of the report of Israel.
Discussion of Report
The debate this afternoon began with comments by Committee experts regarding the responses of the Israeli delegation during the morning meeting. One expert said that the provisions of the Covenant were not applicable under all Israeli jurisdiction and their territorial application was limited. The same expert requested more information on the human rights situation in all parts of the Israeli-occupied territories.
Comments were also made on the continued practice of the state of emergency by Israel for fifty years. One expert suggested that emergency legislation should be minimized and that the use of legislation enacted in relation to the emergency law should be revised and discarded in accordance with the evolution of the situation. Another expert said the state of emergency was renewed by the Knesset without due revision of the general situation. A separate legal group should be formed to recommend to Parliament which emergency legislation should be carried forward or derogated.
When it ratified the Covenant, Israel had declared that since its establishment, the country had been the victim of continuous threats and attacks on its very existence as well as on the life and property of its citizens. The state of emergency, which was proclaimed in May 1948, has remained in force ever since.
Committee experts also requested the delegation to consider its reservation on matters of personal status which in Israel were governed by the religious law of the parties concerned. Article 23 of the Convention stipulates that States parties should take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, both during the marriage and at its dissolution.
It was also suggested that Israel draft a Bill of Rights and other safeguards to avoid unnecessary abuse of administrative detention under which more than five thousand Palestinians were held.
In response to oral questions posed by Committee members during the morning and afternoon meetings, the Israeli officials said their Government was acting in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Laws and that the measures implemented were carried out in a transparent manner.
With regards to the reporting obligation of the civil and political rights situation beyond Israel's territories, the delegation said that since Israel was not practising effective administration in these territories, it was difficult to reflect the situation. For instance, southern Lebanon was not under Israeli Government control except for self-defence operations against terrorists.
The delegation said that Hebrew and Arabic were official languages of Israel. However, the knowledge of some Hebrew was obligatory when applying for Israeli nationality. The official use of Arabic was also increasing.
Non-drafting of Arabs into the army was not considered as an act of discrimination, the Israeli delegation said. The national military service of Israel did not include Arabs, however, there was a tendency to follow a universal drafting to include these segments of the society.
Individuals could lodge complaints claiming that they had been victims of violations of their human rights, the delegation said, adding that the Office of the Ombudsperson was charged with receiving such complaints.
The delegation said that 93 per cent of land was under Government control while the Jewish National Fund disposed of its own land to be distributed for the settlement of Jews. The Fund was established in 1901 to buy land in Israel for Jews around the world.
With regards to the drafting of a Bill of Rights, the delegation said that a similar law had already been initiated in the past, but the human dignity clause of the Basic Laws had been used instead. Nevertheless, the Government was hopefully moving in the direction of drafting a Bill of Rights similar to that of Canada.
In response to the remaining written questions prepared by Committee members beforehand, the delegation said that the open-fire regulations applicable to soldiers in the Israeli Defence Forces were based on principle analogues to those incumbent upon the Israeli Police and Border Guards. A soldier might fire only as a last resort when all other means of apprehending and arresting the suspect had failed. Since the end of the Intifada, the Government had paid out approximately $30 million to Palestinian petitioners as compensation. During the last 10 years, about 50 indictments had taken place against soldiers not acting in accordance with military regulations. The acts by those soldiers had resulted in deaths of persons, including children.
Regarding the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the delegation said that Israel maintained that the basic human rights of all persons under its jurisdiction should never be violated, regardless of the crimes that the individuals might have committed. However, Israel recognized its responsibility to protect the lives of all its citizens and residents from harm at the hands of terrorist organizations. The Israeli authorities had adopted strict rules and guidelines for the handling of interrogations.
Concerning administrative detention under the state of emergency, the delegation said that administrative detention was connected to State security and public safety. If ordered by the head of the army, the detention might be for only 48 hours, and might not be renewed. However, if ordered by the Minister of Defence, the detention might be for a renewable period of up to six months. Administrative detention orders were frequently challenged in court.