Israel: West Bank Barrier Endangers Basic Rights
U.S. Should Deduct Costs From Loan Guarantees

(New York, October 1, 2003) -- The United States should deduct the cost of the
West Bank separation barrier from U.S. loan guarantees for Israel, Human Rights
Watch said today.

In a letter to U.S. President George W. Bush, Human Rights Watch said the
barrier's path and operating arrangements violate the freedom of movement of
Palestinians, endangering their access to food, water, education, and medical
services. With every mile the barrier cuts into the West Bank, towns, villages,
and residents become separated from their lands, crops, services, water, and
jobs.

According to the World Bank, some 150,000 Palestinians will be harmed by the
first phase of the barrier, which has already been completed. Other phases were
likely to affect at least 150,000 more.

"Even in its first phase, the barrier is taking a terrible toll on tens of
thousands of people," said Joe Stork, acting executive director of the Middle
East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch. "President Bush should
ensure that the U.S. government does its utmost to prevent these serious
violations of international law. Deducting the barrier's cost from the loan
guarantees is an obvious place to start."

Human Rights Watch recognizes that the Israeli government has a duty to protect
its civilians, but notes that Israel is obliged to make sure that its security
measures do not violate international human rights and humanitarian law.

Under Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), freedom of movement can be restricted for security reasons - but the
restrictions should be limited to what is necessary and proportionate. As
defined by the U.N. Human Rights Committee, the authoritative human rights body
interpreting the ICCPR, the restrictions should not make movement the exception
rather than the norm. The barrier, however, is creating walled-in enclaves
confining tens of thousands of people. It will institutionalize a system in
which all movement is sharply curtailed except to a handful of permit-holders,
and endanger Palestinians' access to basic services like education and medical
care.

The Israeli government has failed to respond publicly to charges that it could
adopt less intrusive and less restrictive alternatives to address the security
of civilians. In fact, the Israeli State Comptroller published a report in July
2002 strongly criticizing the inadequacy of checkpoint procedures and the lack
of army deployment in border areas.

Even if a wall is the least intrusive method available to Israel, as planned
the barrier is by definition intrusive because it is being constructed around
illegal government sponsored settlements in the West Bank. These intrusions
into the West Bank deprive Palestinians of land and are cutting many of them
off from services such as education and health care. The Israeli government
cannot use security concerns for Israelis living in illegal settlements to
justify further illegal changes to occupied territory. Despite the illegality
of such changes beyond the Green Line, not one of the competing proposals for
the barrier's route is contiguous with the this line which is the post-1948
demarcation line between Israel and the West Bank.

"Israel has a long history of severe and arbitrary restrictions on movement,"
Stork said. "The barrier will institutionalize these restrictions and reinforce
the long-term harm done by illegal settlements. That's why we need strong U.S.
intervention, now."

Background

Human Rights Watch takes no position on the territorial dispute that lies at
the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including any changes in land
status that might accompany an eventual peace agreement. However, it seeks to
ensure that the treatment of people living under Israeli occupation conforms to
international legal standards. With this in mind, the organization has
impartially and carefully monitored abuses of international human rights and
humanitarian law by all parties in the Occupied Territories since 1989.

On April 14, 2002, the Israeli cabinet announced that "fences and other
physical obstacles" were to be constructed to prevent Palestinians crossing
into Israel. The government announcement, made during Israel's "Defensive
Shield" campaign launched after a spate of suicide attacks against Israeli
civilians, said the "buffer zones" were to be created in three areas along the
Green Line, the post-1948 demarcation line between Israel and the West Bank.

The "fences" mentioned in that announcement have since become known as the
separation barrier, made up of multiple obstacles that will wind through the
northern and southern West Bank as well as East Jerusalem. Israeli officials
refer to the barrier as the "seam zone."

Although many public commentators liken the barrier to the fence surrounding
the Gaza Strip, the two are not alike. Most important, the separation barrier
does not follow the Green Line that divides Israel from the occupied West Bank.
The barrier's division of Palestinian land is what contributes to its harmful
humanitarian impact on the Palestinian population.

The first phase of the separation barrier was completed at the end of July
2003. It winds approximately 108 miles through the northwestern West Bank. It
has resulted in the confiscation of some 2,850 acres of land and carved off
some 2 percent of the total area of the West Bank. Two more phases are under
construction: one in the northeast of the West Bank, and another in the region
of East Jerusalem and Bethlehem. The route of a fourth phase is still under
negotiation. Depending on the barrier's final route, the cost of construction
is estimated at up to $1.3 billion.

Although the barrier's exact elements differ according to location and
topography, its core is an electrified fence, 10 feet high, equipped with
surveillance cameras and other sensors. It is flanked on either side by six-
foot-tall barbed-wire pyramids. Other obstacles include a trench six to eight
feet in depth, a military patrol road, and a dirt path to record footprints.
The barrier's total width ranges from 60 to 100 yards.

In at least two locations, Qalqilya and Tulkarem, the barrier takes the shape
of a 26-foot-high concrete wall with embedded guard and surveillance towers.

As is common in other locations throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip,
Israeli officials have informed local residents that all movement in the area
50-80 yards adjacent to the barrier will be forbidden. Passage through the
barrier will be arranged via gates and larger terminals, although the Israeli
authorities have yet to specify the basis on which people will be allowed to
cross.

In addition to the separation barrier, Israeli planning maps specify the
creation of three "depth barriers"- presumably deep trenches to prevent
vehicular traffic-in Jenin and Tulkarem governorates. These are to be built
significantly further into the West Bank than the separation barrier's first
phase.

Under customary international humanitarian law, Israel has a positive
obligation to ensure the welfare of residents of the West Bank (1907 Hague
Regulations on Land Warfare, Article 43). It is also obliged to ensure the
passage of emergency medical services, to respect the sick, to allow the
passage of foodstuffs and medical goods, and to facilitate education (Fourth
Geneva Convention, Articles 16, 20, 25, 50, 55 and 59). Israel is prohibited
under customary international law from making permanent changes to the West
Bank that do not benefit the local inhabitants (1907 Hague Regulations, Article
55), and from transferring members of its own population into the Occupied
Territories (Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49 (6)).

Israel has also ratified numerous human rights treaties that oblige it to
uphold rights to freedom of movement, and access to education, healthcare,
work, and water. These include the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In
August the U.N. Human Rights Committee said that "in the current circumstances,
the provisions of the [ICCPR] apply to the benefit of the population of the
Occupied Territories, for all conduct by [Israeli] authorities or agents in
those territories that affect the enjoyment of rights enshrined in the Covenant
and fall within the ambit of State responsibility of Israel under the
principles of public international law."

Algeria: Free Jailed Human Rights Defender

(New York, October 4, 2003) -- Algerian human rights defender
Slaheddine Sidhoum should be freed from prison and guaranteed a
fair trial, Human Rights Watch said today in a letter to the
Algeria's minister of justice.

Sidhoum has been in Serkadji Prison in the capital, Algiers,
since Monday when he surrendered to authorities in order to seek
a retrial on a 1997 in absentia conviction. At the time of his
conviction, grossly unfair trials were the norm for defendants
charged with security offenses. Sidhoum, a medical doctor who
resides in Algiers, was convicted on charges related to
"terrorism or subversion" and sentenced in absentia to 20 years
in prison. He has spent the last nine years living clandestinely
in Algeria.

"Slaheddine Sidhoum turned himself in to clear his name," said
Joe Stork, acting executive director of Human Rights Watch's
Middle East and North Africa division. "He should be released
from jail and, if he is retried, the proceedings this time must
be fair and open to all observers."

Even during his years in hiding, Sidhoum persevered in
documenting human rights abuses in his country by detailing
alleged cases of torture, summary executions and "disappearances"
to journalists, by sending letters to Algeria's president, and by
disseminating reports internationally.

In a letter to Algerian Minister of Justice Tayeb Belaiz, Human
Rights Watch urged that Sidhoum be freed pending any trial,
that-if he is retried-he be charged with internationally
recognizable criminal charges, that the trial take place without
undue delay, that it conform to international standards for
fairness, and that the proceedings be open to both domestic and
international observers.

Council of Europe / US / Japan: Death Penalty: Putting an end to a heinous practice

The Council of Europe should continue to do all it can to press Japan and the United States of America to abolish the death penalty, Amnesty International urged today ahead of tomorrow's debate in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on executions in countries with observer status.

"The continued resort to judicial killing by these two observer states casts a stain on the abolitionist aspirations of the Council of Europe as a whole," Amnesty International said, welcoming the fact that this region of 45 countries is now an execution-free zone. "Japan and the United States must recognize that their observer status places an additional obligation on them to end their use of this outdated punishment."

In 2001, the Parliamentary Assembly found that Japan and the USA were violating their obligations as observer states by continuing to employ the death penalty. The Assembly set itself the task of encouraging abolition in the two countries, in particular by promoting parliamentary dialogue to this end.

In a report earlier this month, the Council of Europe's Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights reported a "fruitful and ongoing" dialogue with Japanese parliamentarians on the subject of abolition. However, the Committee's Rapporteur concluded that, in contrast, "there is little willingness on the American side to engage in parliamentary dialogue with us, their European colleagues, on this important issue". The Rapporteur added that the Committee was "certainly not made to feel welcome" when it held a conference on abolition in the US Senate building in Washington DC in April this year. Not a single member of Congress attended the event.

"We urge the Council of Europe not to be discouraged -- it was always going to be a tall order to persuade these two countries to move away from judicial killing," Amnesty International continued. "Old habits die hard, and this is one of the oldest habits of all."

Background

At least 118 people are under sentence of death in Japan, some 50 of whom have had their sentences finalized and can be executed at any time. Prisoners are told less than two hours before execution that they are going to be killed; families and lawyers are never informed of the decision. Most condemned prisoners are held on death row for many years, and endure considerable mental distress. The oldest prisoner, Tomiyama Tsuneki, aged 86, who had been on death row for 36 years, died of kidney failure in September 2003. The oldest person now on death row is 81. The longest-serving prisoner is 77 years old, and has been in prison for 41 years, 33 of them under a death sentence. There are at least 12 others who have spent over two decades on death row. There has been one execution in Japan this year.

More than 3,600 men and women await execution in the USA, where more than 750 executions have been carried out since 1990, 56 of them this year. The USA has frequently violated international standards in its pursuit of the death penalty, including by using it against the mentally impaired, the inadequately represented, those whose guilt remains in doubt, and foreign nationals denied their consular rights. In the past 18 months, the USA has executed four child offenders -- those under 18 years old at the time of the offence -- the only such executions known in the world in this period. The report of the Council of Europe's Committee on Legal Affairs characterizes the execution of child offenders as a "particularly heinous practice" which is "clearly in violation of international law."