In August 2010,
HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual, petitioned the High Court of Justice (HCJ) to instruct the attorney general to quickly and effectively examine complaints of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment during interrogations by the Israel Security Agency (ISA).
The petition was filed after more than a year's wait for the response of the supervisor of the inspector of complaints by ISA interrogees, regarding complaints by 13 serving and former prisoners about their treatment by ISA interrogators during interrogations in the ISA facility in Petah Tikva.
In addition to the individual complaints, HaMoked also requested the court to order the formulation of a complaint investigation procedure, with reasonable processing times, to prevent the recurrence of protracted disregard of complaints. Miraculously, shortly after the petition was filed, HaMoked received the replies of the supervisor of the inspector of complaints by ISA interrogees, concerning the specific complaints. Nonetheless, HaMoked did not withdraw its petition, in order to have the court rule on the issue of principle.
On January, 12, 2011,
the court dismissed the petition in limine, without holding a hearing to allow HaMoked to respond to the state's claims presented in the state attorney's statement to the court. In the judgment, the justices accept the state's claims, and rule that the proceedings vis-à-vis the administrative authority had not been exhausted prior to the application to the court over the issue of principle, and therefore, the petition must be dismissed in limine. It is further stated in the judgment, that in its response to the petition, the state announced a structural change regarding the authority of the inspector of complaints by ISA interrogees, to the effect that the investigation of ISA interrogees' complaints would be completely transferred to the responsibility of the Justice Ministry. The effective date, the investigation procedures and the intended supervisors thereof, remained unknown.
HaMoked notes that although the replies concerning the complainants arrived prior to the hearing in the petition, the court should have addressed the fact that response of the state attorney's office gave no answers to the questions of when the new investigation mechanism would be formulated, who would monitor it, what the timeframe for handling a complaint would be, and to whom complaints must be addressed. In this respect, the specific complaints serve to demonstrate the problems which result from the absence of procedures.
Although the state attorney's office briefly apologized for the protracted delay in examining complaints, those interrogated by the ISA remain powerless, without a clear recipient for their complaints.
