Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

584 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
Detainees who confess almost invariably accept a plea bargain to reduce
the likely length of their sentence, because their confession, even when it is
disputed, will inevitably result in a conviction (Human Rights Watch/Middle
East, 1994). Confession evidence can be disputed during a ‘mini-trial’ (Cohen &
Golan, 1991; Landau Commission Report, 1989), where the judge will consider
the admissibility of the confession after hearing evidence about the method,
process and circumstances of the interviews. Unlike the situation in England,
where confessions can be disputed on the basis of psychological vulnerability
alone, a disputed confession in Israel invariably implies some impropriety on
behalf of the GSS agents and therefore reflects on their integrity.
During a ‘mini-trial’ the prosecutor has to prove that the defendant’s confession
was voluntary (i.e. given by his own ‘free will’). The legal guidelines
concerning admissibility follow the English Judges’ Rules, which were incorporated
into Israeli law by way of Supreme Court rulings (Landau Commission
Report, 1989). This means that a breach due to impropriety by the police could
technically result in a confession being ruled inadmissible by a trial judge.
However, the
Supreme Court has occasionally observed that the Police would do well to act in
accordance with the Judges’ Rules, but things have never reached the stage where
a confession was thrown out because of a violation of the Rules. Instead, emphasis
has always been placed on the condition that the confession must be given ‘of free
will’ (Landau Commission Report, 1989, p. 166).
As discussed in Chapter 8, the conviction rate by the Israeli’s military courts is
extremely high (96.8%), and the main evidence against the defendant is typically
a signed confession statement. In order to illustrate the techniques used
by the GSS to extract a confession from suspects and the legal issues involved,
a case will be presented. The case is of particular interest because the GSS
agents, during their ‘mini-trial’ testimony, admitted in court that they used
coercive tactics, including sleep deprivation, to extract confessions. The background
to the case is extensively discussed in the book Israel’s Interrogation of
Palestinians from the Occupied Territories (Human Rights Watch/Middle East,
1994). Gudjonsson (1995b) has discussed the psychological aspects of the case
in detail and an abbreviated version is presented here.
Brief Background
In June 1992, a 27-year-old Palestinian, Mr A, from the West Bank of Jerusalem
was arrested on suspicion of aiding two Palestinian men who planned to carry
out terrorist explosions against the State of Israel. He was sent to a holding
facility in the Bethlehem military headquarters, where he spent three days
before being transferred to the GSS interrogation centre at Hebron where he
was detained and interrogated for 16 days.
On the seventh day of GSS detention, Mr A confessed to the GSS agents
that he was a member of the outlawed Islamic Resistance Movement ‘Hamas’,
which is a relatively minor offence if no other charges are proved. The following
morning, Mr A was found to suffer from facial injuries, which the agents said