Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:39:35.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commission of Inquiry into the Methods of Investigation of the General Security Service Regarding Hostile Terrorist Activity*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2016

Get access

Extract

1.1 On 31 May 1987, The Government of Israel resolved:

“That the matter of the GSS methods of interrogation regarding Hostile Terrorist Activity (HTA) is – in the wake of Criminal Appeal 124/87 (Nafsu) – a subject of vital public importance at this time which requires elucidation.”

Therefore the Government decided:

“To establish a Commission of Inquiry, in accordance with Sec. 1 of the Commissions of Inquiry Law, 1968, regarding the investigation methods and procedures of the GSS on HTA, and the giving of testimony in court in connection with these investigations.

“The Commission will make recommendations and proposals, as it sees fit, also regarding the appropriate methods and procedures concerning these investigations in the future, while taking into account the unique needs of the struggle against Hostile Terrorist Activity.”

Type
Excerpts of the Report
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 23 , Issue 2-3: Symposium on the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Methods of Investigation of the General Security Service Regarding Hostile Terrorist Activity , Spring–Summer 1989 , pp. 146 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Nafsu v. Chief Military Prosecutor (1987) 41(ii) P.D. 631, 7 S.J. 263.

2 23 L.S.I. 32.

3 Sec. 23 of the Commissions of Inquiry Law, 1968 (ibid., at 36) provides:

“Where the Government, with the approval of the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee of the Knesset, determines that the subject-matter of the inquiry, or the proceedings of the commission, requires or require secrecy, the following provisions shall apply, unless the Government, with approval as aforesaid, decides to deviate from all or part of them:

1) A notice of the setting-up of the commission of inquiry shall not be published;

2) the provisions of section 38 of the Penal Law (State Security, Foreign Relations and Official Secrets) Law, 5717–1957, shall apply mutatis mutandis;

3) a person who attends before the commission under section 15 shall only be represented by an advocate authorised to act as defence counsel under section 18 of the Military Justice Law, 5715–1955;

4) the proceedings of the commission shall be held in camera;

5) the commission shall submit its report also to the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee of the Knesset;

6) the commission shall not publish its report or the minutes of its proceedings”.

4 9 L.S.I. 184, as amended S.H. (1986) no. 1183, p.172. This amendment granted appeal with leave of judgments of the Military Court to the Supreme Court.

5 2 L.S.I. [N.V.] 198, at 200.

6 Drayton, , Laws of Palestine, vol. I, p. 467.Google Scholar

7 Attorney General v. Hamad Muhsin Mahmud(1946) 1 A.L.R. 674, at 676, and see also Mizrahi v. Attorney General (1953) 7 P.D. 415, at 421.

8 35 L.S.I. 370.

9 L.S.I. Special volume.

10 2 L.S.I. [N.V.] 5.

11 See the Report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, 1981 (London, H.M. S.O., 1981) 153.

12 R. v. May (1952) 36 Cr. App. R. 91, 93; R. v. Best (1909) 1 K.B. 692.

13 See the leading judgments in Ali Abdul Hadi and Muflih Za 'arur v. Attorney General (1950) 3 P.D. 13, at 33; and Hussein Yassin v. Attorney General (1963) 17 P.D. 1541, at 1566.

14 See Para. 3.18 below.

15 See Income Tax Ordinance (New Version) (1 L.S.I. [N.V.] 145), sec. 138; Customs Ordinance (New Version) (1 L.S.I. [N.V.] 51), sec. 2; Value Added Tax Law, 1975 (30 L.S.I. 46), sec. 108; Currency Control Law, 1978 (32 L.S.I. 134), sec. 14.

16 Ofer v. Chief Military Prosecutor (1960) 44 P.E. 362.

17 And see Kaufmann v. Margines (1952) 6 P.D. 1005, at 1034.

18 (Ramat Gan, Bar-Ilan University, 1973, in Hebrew).

19 (1972) 4 Mishpatim 5.

20 (Jerusalem, 1987, in Hebrew) vol. 2, p. 387ff.

21 (London, Macmillan, 1882) vol. 2, p. 108ff.

22 See the discussion of this in Williams, Glanville, Textbook of Criminal Law (London, Stevens, 2nd ed., 1983) 597ff.Google Scholar

23 (1971) 2 All E.R. 175, at 186.

24 Law Com. No. 83, para. 4.33 (London, H.M.S.O., 1977).

25 Law Com. No. 143 (London, H.M.S.O., 1985).

26 Model Penal Code, sec. 3.02, and see p. 10: “The formulation makes the actor's belief in the necessity sufficient (assuming a valid choice between evils) … Questions of immediacy … have bearing, of course, on the genuineness of a belief in necessity …” See also the discussion of this flexible test for choosing the lesser evil in Perkins, R.M. and Boyce, R.M., Criminal Law (New York, Foundation Press, 3rd ed., 1982) 1071.Google Scholar

27 Priesler, Z., ed. Legislation in Judea and Samaria (Jerusalem, Ktuvim, 1987, in Hebrew) 144.Google Scholar

28 In his aforementioned article, supra n. 19, and in his book, Elements of Criminal Law, supra n. 20.

29 Supra n. 16, at 410.

30 In his book, supra n. 20, at 389, 400.

31 G. Williams, op.cit. supra n. 22, at 502.

32 (West Publishing Co., 1984) vol. 2, p. 45.

33 Ibid., at 56–57.

34 Ibid., at 58.

35 Supra n. 20, at 399.

36 (1984) 14 Mishpatim 127ff.

37 (1986) 102 Law Quarterly Review 45.

38 Ibid., at n. 4.

39 Perkins and Boyce, supra n. 26, at 1071.

40 (New York, Wiley and Sons, 1977).

41 See the Hussein Yassin case, supra n. 13, at 1553.

42 (1975) 3 All E.R. 175, at 182, 188.

43 See R. v. Fulling (1987) 2 W.L.R. 923.

44 (Jerusalem, Academic Press, 1979, in Hebrew) 248fF.

45 Supra n. 27, at 6.

46 Ha'il Mu'adi v. State of Israel (1984) 38(i) P.D. 197.

47 Abu Midjem v. State of Israel (1980) 34(iv) P.D. 533.

48 Supra n. 46, at 246–247.

49 Ibid., at 224.

50 Ibid., at 249–250.

51 Ibid., at 248.

52 Avrushmi v. State of Israel (1987) 41(i) P.D. 387.

53 Abu Amra v. State of Israel (1980) 34(ii) P.D. 272.

54 Supra n. 46, at 245.

55 Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

56 New York v. Quarles 104 S.Ct. 2626 (1984).

57 (1986) 16 Mishpatim 3 and Explanatory Notes, at 26–27.

58 Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1978 (The Hague, Nijhoff) 602.

59 Artzi v. Attorney General (1966) 20(i) P.D. 225, at 231.

60 (1978) 42 Law and Contemporary Problems 140, at 166.

61 Supra n. 5, at 208.

62 Supra n. 45.

63 33 L.S.I. 89.

64 P.G., Supp. No. 2, No. 1442, p. 1055.