Israel declares itself to be a light unto the nations. It also violates 15 of the Articles of the UDHR
※→ fanger, et al
Much of The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) sounds good in principle. But is not necessary sound as law.
BUT it is not, - necessarily, - the best forum in the world to judge matters on the domestic level; or even that of the near regional customary law level.
ψ Article [9]. Except for the fact that the occupation forces maintain the right to hold a person
in administrative detention, that is, held without charges and deprived of the right to defend himself in court.
ψ Article 10
“Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.”
ψ Article 11
“Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.”
(COMMENT)
The first issue is based on matters relative to simple detention, administrative detention, and imprisonment. These are addressed either under Article 9,
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which is International Human Rights Law (IHRL) or under Rule 99. Arbitrary deprivation of liberty is prohibited, Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL), or Article 6, Protocol II, GCIV (IHL). But in the normal course of carrying-out Article 43 Hague Regulation duties, the most practical of detention falls under Artice 78, GCIV, wherein → if the Occupying Power considers it necessary, for imperative reasons of security, to take safety measures concerning protected persons, it may, at the most, subject them to assigned residence or to internment. Normally, logic would dictate, in a less restrictive environment, simple detention, administrative detention, and imprisonment would be the least desirable. But given the past history of criminal behaviors, if the security of the State (Israel) makes it "absolutely necessary" or for "a greater imperative reason for security."
The second issue deals with the prosecution of those deprived of their liberty shall for cause → awaiting trial or hearing procedures, as either a criminal as described by Article 68, GCIV, or as thse needing Article 6, Protocol II protection.
The presumption of either guilt or innocence is, at its core, a moral and philosophical issue if it is absent compelling evidence to the contrary. While it can be taught, it is mentally unenforceable.
Such “secret evidence”, fabricated to the gills, was the crux of the Dreyfus Affair. The French court, when exonerating Captain Dreyfus, ruled that the admission of “secret evidence” is incompatible with the right of a person to a legal defense. Dreyfus would, in time, be decorated by the thankful Republic with its highest decoration, the Légion d’honneur, because “by defending his own honor, he defended the nation’s ” and prevented it from jailing an innocent man. It’s been almost 120 years since Dreyfus’ infamous court-martial, and the Israeli military courts are yet to absorb this simple lesson.
(COMMENT)
Yes, a very famous case; the Dreyfus Affair. And while the official reason the conviction was set aside
(not actually fund innocent) may have given the outward appearance that the review of the prosecutorial use of classified information had a favorable outcome, in all realty had more to do with the theory of a scapegoat and the tolerance of the French Army to accept the fabrication of evidence as a means of attaining a result → was acceptable behavior; and the fact that the French Army felt that someone needed to be held accountable; → and Dreyfus being Jewish, was very expendable. The truth was never really a goal.
Yes, there were two wrongs in the Dreyfus Affair. The French General Staff found it acceptable to the wrong individual was punished. That the General Staff felt that Jewish Officers were more expendable than than non-Jewish officers.
Most Respectfully,
R
