Adalah Demands Cancellation of New Bill that Harms Right of Detainees Suspected of Security OffensesIn a letter to MK David Rotem, the Chairman of the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, dated 21 October 2010, Adalah demanded that a new bill, which amends the Criminal Procedure Law, should be rejected as it will further harm the constitutional rights of detainees suspected of security offenses. The bill entitled, "Criminal Procedure Law (Suspects of Security Offenses) (Temporary Order) (Amendment No. 2) – 2010," is designed to extend the validity of special procedures that apply only to detention proceedings of those suspected of security offenses, and to anchor in law further new harsh procedures regarding these suspects. The Committee discussed the bill on 25 October 2010. The special procedures, as noted above, allow law enforcement authorities to delay the bringing of a detainee suspected of security offenses before a judge for up to 96 hours after the arrest (instead of a maximum of 48 hours for any other detainee). It also allows the courts to extend the detention of a security suspect for up to 20 days each time (instead of 15 days for other detainees) and to hold extension of detention hearings in the absence of the detainee. Adalah Attorney Abeer Baker stated in the letter that a detainee suspected of committing a security offense possesses every constitutional right that any other suspect is entitled to under law. Nevertheless, the Temporary Order added to the Criminal Procedure Law in 2006 set special procedures for security suspects. Therefore the new bill "is contrary to goals of the criminal law and paves the way toward the creation of two criminal law systems, based on illegal principles, severe segregation and harsh discrimination, especially against the Palestinians." Under certain conditions, the bill will enable courts to hold detention hearings without the presence of the detainee. Adalah's position is that holding extension of detention and any other hearings outside the presence of the detainee, when added to a prohibition on the detainee's ability to meet with his lawyers, will endanger effective judicial review of his detention. "One cannot accept any possibility, which condones a procedure regarding the detention of a person in his absence. This violates a suspect's right for due process and freedom [from arbitrary arrest]," the letter states.
|