SECRET
PAGE 01 JERUSA 03239 06 OF 07 011016Z
ACTION SS-25
INFO OCT-01 ISO-00 SSO-00 /026 W
044025 011023Z /13
R 301108Z NOV 78
FM AMCONSUL JERUSALEM
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 2241
INFO AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV
SECRET SECTION 6 OF 7 JERUSALEM 3239
STADIS/////////////////
EXDIS
18. COMPLAINTS AND CHALLENGES. MANY APPLICANTS INTERROGATED
AT TAMALLAH [Ramallah?] AND HEBRON STATED THAT THEY SIGNED TWO CONFESSIONS: THE FIRST, BEFORE THEIR ACTUAL INTERROGATORS, MEMBERS OF THE SECURITY ORGANS, AND THE SECOND (A DUPLICATE OF THE FIRST) BEFORE AN ORDINARY POLICEMAN. WHEN THE CONSULAR OFFICER ASKED SEVERAL APPLICANTS WHO HAD OMITTED TO MENTION THE SECOND CONFESSION WHETHER THEY HAD SIGNED ONLY ONE, THEY REPLIED THAT OF COURSE THEY HAD SIGNED A SECOND DOCUMENT -- BUT THOUGHT THIS WAS NOT WORTH MENTIONING BECAUSE IT WAS A STANDARD PROCEDURE. ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANTS, THE PROCEDURE BEGINS WITH THEIR INTERROGATION UNDER TORTURE BY MEMBERS OF THE SECURITY ORGANS, WHO EITHER DO NOT IDENTIFY THEMSELVES TO THE ARRESTEE OR WHO USE ARABIC (OR SOMETIMES AMERICAN) PSEUDONYMS, AT AN INTERROGATION CENTER USED FOR DEALING WITH POLITICAL CASES. WHEN THE ARRESTEE BREAKS DOWN, AN INTERROGATOR DICTATES A CONFESSION OR WRITES IT FOR HIM. FOLLOWING THE SIGNATURE OF THIS FIRST CONFESSION, THE ARRESTEE IS TOLD THAT HE WILL BE TAKEN TO THE LOCAL POLICE STATION, WHERE HE MUST CONFESS AGAIN, REPRODUCING THE CONTENT OF THE FIRST CONFESSION -- AND THAT IF HE REFUSES, HE WILM [sic] BE RETURNED TO INTERROGATION UNDER TORTURE. AT THE POLICE STATION, ORDINARY POLICEMEN QUESTION HIM WITHOUT THE THE [sic] USE OF FORCE, AND HE SIGNS THE SECOND CONFESSION. (ONE
SECRET
SECRET
PAGE 02 JERUSA 03239 06 OF 07 011016Z
APPLICANT, WHO WAS INTERROGATED AT NABLUS, TOLD OF A VARIANT
OF THIS PROCESS, IN WHICH, INSTEAD OF HIS BEING TAKEN TO THE
POLICE STATION TO SIGN A SECOND CONFESSION, THE POLICEMAN WAS
BROUGHT TO THE INTERROGATION ROOM FOR A MINUTE OR TWO JUST TO
WITNESS THE SIGNATURE OF A CONFESSION, THE INTERROGATORS
HAVING LEFT THE ROOM BY ANOTHER DOOR.) COURT RECORDS INDICATE
THAT AT MANY OF THE TRIALS THE ONLY WITNESS WAS A LOCAL POLICEMAN, AND APPLICANTS WHO UNDERSTOOD THE LANGUAGE OF THEIR TRIALS RELATE THAT THIS POLICEMAN WAS THE ONE WHO HAD WITNESSED THE SIGNATURE OF THEIR SECOND CONFESSION, AND WAS BROUGH [sic] FORWARD IN ORDER TO TESTIFY THAT THE CONFESSION HAD BEEN MADE FREELY, NOT UNDER DURESS. SUCH A PROCEDURE, WHICH WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT FAR-REACHING COOPERATION BETWEEN THE POLICE AND THE SECURITY ORGANS, COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN CHALLENGES TO THE VALIDITY OF THE CONFESSIONS.
19. AT THEIR TRIALS, THREE APPLICANTS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY
OF THEIR CONFESSIONS. THE REACTION OF THE COURT, AS DESCRIBED
BY THESE APPLICANTS, STANDS IN MARKED CONTRAST TO GOI'S CONTENTION THAT ALLEGATIONS OF MISTREATMENT ARE CAREFULLY INVESTIGATED. ONE APPLICANT SAID THAT AN ISRAELI SECURITY OFFICER SENT HIM TO SYRIA TO CONTACT HIS BROTHER, A KNOWN FATAH OFFICER, BUT THAT WNE [sic] HE RETURNED, HE WAS ARRESTED AND, AS A RESULT OF PHYSICAL PRESSURES DURING INTERROGATION, HE CONFESSED TO THE CHARGE OF "CONTACTING AN ENEMY ORGANIZATION." AT THE FIRST SESSION OF HIS TRIAL IN JANUARY 1977, HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISRAELI SECURITY OFFICER, WHOM HE NAMED, BE PRODUCED AS A DEFENSE WITNESS. THE TRIAL WAS POSTPONED UNTIL APRIL 1977, THE OFFICER DID NOT ATTEND, AND THE ACCUSED WAS CONVICTED ON THE BASIS OF HIS CONFESSION AND SENTENCED TO EIGHTEEN MONTHS IMPRISONMENT. ANOTHER APPLICANT, WHO WAS TRIED IN APRIL 1976, STATED, IN RESPONSE TO THE JUDGE'S QUERRY [sic] AS TO WHETHER HE AFFIRMED HIS CONFESSION, THAT HE REPUDIATED IT BECAUSE IT