NGO Malpractice

ngo malpractice page 36
“torture” and “ill-treatment” are not provided,
and these key terms are used inconsistently.
Aside from the absence of any broader look at
Israel’s legitimate security concerns, the report
fails to consider how reliable the unsubstantiated
claims of terror suspects might be, disregarding
the possibility that they are fabrications.
For example, in the “Failure to Report” section,
PHR-I and PCATI detail the case of a nineteenyear-old
male referred to as “A.R.”
On 12.10.10, A.R. told a visiting PCATI
attorney about the painful cuffing and the
marks it had left. He tried to display them
before the attorney through the visitation
window, but due to the conditions they
were unclear. A.R.’s medical file contains
no documentation of these injuries, though
marks apparently remained on his forearms
for months after handcuffing in question
[sic]. 204
As this description makes clear, PCATI officials
possessed no firsthand knowledge of the
alleged harm caused to A.R., nor did they seek
to verify his claims. Rather, the attorney was
“told” of the “painful cuffing,” and the marks
“apparently remained” (emphasis added). In the
continuation of this account, PHR-I and PCATI
supply further medical evaluations based solely
on the individual’s declarations, without any
documentation or verification:
In his affidavit A.R. also reported that he
“suffers from kidney pains,” which he says
are a result of a previous illness seriously
exacerbated by the beating he suffered.
Though his medical record does mention
the previous illness, it does not note its
worsening which, according to the patient,
resulted from torture or ill treatment. 205
“The Case of T.S.,” a resident of Ramallah, is also
instructive. According to the report, T.S. was
“bitten by a dog who accompanied the soldiers”
who were attempting to arrest him, “among
204 Ibid., 31.
205 Ibid., 31.
other brutal violence.” Although he was treated
by numerous Israeli doctors and “the medical
record further details the injury,” the NGOs assert
that the incident should have been “reported
to an external body” because of “suspicious
injuries.” 206 Yet, as noted by the hospital where
T.S. was treated, “the doctors have no way to
determine the source of the bite.” 207 There was no
reason, other than preexisting political agenda,
to assume that the doctors should question the
circumstances of the bite or think that it was not
sustained when T.S. resisted arrest.
In addition to the “evidence” and “cases,” the report
also presents inconsistent recommendations and
erases the context of terrorism in the actions of
security forces. PHR-I and PCATI recommend,
disingenuously, that the IMA “resolutely and
unequivocally announce to the public their
opposition to torture” and that it also “provide
maximum protection for medical personnel
who would like to object to the demands of the
security apparatus and/or report torture or illtreatment
of prisoners.”208 However, as noted
by the IMA in its response to the report, these
steps had already been implemented by the IMA
and the Israeli Ministry of Health prior to PHR-I
and PCATI’s allegations. As a matter of policy,
the Israeli Medical Association had specifically
repudiated torture, in keeping with the relevant
international treaties long before the PHR-I/
PCATI report.209
Despite the report’s obvious flaws, the NGOs
conclude by threatening the Israeli medical
community with prosecution in international
forums, warning that medical personnel “may
206 Ibid., 34.
207 Dan Even, “Report: Israeli doctors failed to report abuse
of prisoners and detainees,” Haaretz, November 4, 2011,
available at http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/
report-israeli-doctors-failed-to-report-abuse-of-prisoners-anddetainees-1.393609
208 Ibid., 55.
209 “Prohibition of Physician Particpation in Interrogations
and Torture,” IMA | Israel Medical Association, December 2007,
available at http://www.ima.org.il/eng.