The Hotline for Migrant Workers* The Association for Civil Rights in Israel * Physicians for Human Rights * ASSAF * The Israel Religious Action Center
On February 6, 2008 the Israeli High Court rejected a petition submitted by the Hotline for Migrant Workers, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Physicians for Human Rights, ASSAF, and The Israel Religious Action Center, challenging the detention conditions in the Ketziot prison in southern Israel. The petition was written and argued by Attorney Yonatan Berman from the Hotline for Migrant Workers.
Until the petition was submitted, volunteers from the Hotline for Migrant Workers had been visiting “Ketziot” prison on a weekly basis and were able to bring clothes and monitor general complaints. Immediately after the petition was submitted, the prison authorities informed the Hotline that the volunteers would no longer be able to enter the facility. Despite attempts of members of Knesset to reverse this decision, Hotline volunteers have not been able to collect the necessary data in order to release asylum-seekers from detention for more than a month. This decision will have a negative impact on the lives of many of the asylum-seekers currently detained.
The petition focused on the detention of young children, mainly Sudanese and Eritreans, who arrived in Israel with their parents, seeking asylum. The petitioners’ main arguments were:
– Currently, deportation to Sudan and Eritrea cannot take place because the countries are considered too dangerous. As a result of the inability to deport these children, their detention is indefinite. Some of the children have been held since July 2007 and there is no time limit on their detention. According to the Entry to Israel law, the sole purpose for detention is deportation. Therefore, when deportation is not possible, there is no legal justification for indefinite detention.
– According to International Law, the detention of children is only permissible as a last resort and only for the minimum necessary period. Israel has not attempted to find alternatives to the detention of children, and since July 2007 detention has been the default whenever an asylum-seeker’s child arrives in Israel through the Egyptian border.
– United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) guidelines dictate that detention of asylum-seekers should be avoided and is allowed only as an exception and for a limited period of time.
– The State’s detention policy ignores the principles of the child’s best interests, as well as the principles of International Law described above. The detention is arbitrary and is indefinite.
– The petition cited at length the Australian experience of detaining young persons at the Woomera detention facility and the deterioration in the mental health of children incarcerated for long periods of time.
– The conditions at the “Ketziot” facility were described at length: The women and children are “housed” in tents with a few narrow military beds and there are no closets for personal belongings. The weather is cold, and although heating was provided immediately after the petition was submitted, the tents are not insulated enough. There is not enough hot water for showering and there are not enough showers and toilets, as a result – they are always dirty. Three teachers are supposed to teach more than 100 children; there are no books, and no curriculum. Consequently, most of the time the children are bored. There is no playground for the children and no opportunities to leave the fenced area. Psychosocial services are not available. Pregnant women are taken to Beersheba to deliver their babies at a hospital one hour away. A few days after birth, mother and newborn baby are returned to the tent. In addition, there are no public phones, severely limiting asylum-seekers’ contact with the outside world and with welfare and assistance authorities.
– The petitioners’ main demand was to close down the sections in Ketziot where women and children are detained, to avoid detaining children in tents and to avoid detaining children without proper educational facilities and psychosocial assistance.
The State responded that the number of asylum-seekers rose dramatically during 2007 (during 2006, 600 people were detained for illegal entry, while in 2007, 4,900 people were detained). According to the State, most of the people who arrive in Israel are migrant workers seeking to better their lives. The State emphasized that less then 1/3 of the Sudanese arriving in Israel are from Darfur and many of them have already applied for asylum in Egypt, so they are in no danger. The State argued that it has initiated a coordinated response to the new phenomenon on various levels. Regarding the detention conditions, the State argued that it is in the process of improving the conditions and it is open to constructive criticism. The State argued that it supplies as many blankets as needed and plans to improve the heating. Public phones were installed in the facility, but when the Hotline’s volunteers tried to bring phone cards, the prison authorities prevented it. The State argued that there is a plan to provide a facility which will house pregnant women during the last stages of their pregnancy and after birth. With regards to education, there are three teachers who work 5 days a week, 5 hours a day and the children are divided into three age-groups. Volunteer organizations are helping the prison authority and there is one social worker in the facility with two more set to be appointed.
The Court’s ruling (Justice Procaccia, Alon and Naor) was as follows:
“The petitioners raise an important and difficult humanitarian problem; we do not blame them for ‘rushing’ to Court, as the respondents claimed. The criticism made by the petitioners and by others is a constructive criticism, and this is agreed upon by the respondents. However, we do not see justification, at this time, for our intervention. We have examined the background to the problem faced by the respondents at a scope that Israel has not faced before. The State had to operate within a very short time and we are under the impression that the respondents will continue to solve the various problems which may rise. We are under the impression that the most urgent problems are the problem of the extreme cold and the problem of education. We hope that the respondents will act urgently to solve these problems. The respondents are aided by several organizations, their contribution is welcomed. We do not think there is currently a need for legal intervention and we hope it will not be needed in the future. However, if there will be a need, the doors of this court are open. We hereby reject the petition.”
