## Facts

- Multiple petitions challenged written interrogation directives used by Israel’s General Security Service (GSS) that permitted “moderate physical pressure” on security detainees suspected of hostile terrorist activity.
- Petitioners included human-rights organizations and individual Palestinian detainees; respondents included the State and senior officials responsible for security and detention.
- The challenged methods included violent “shaking,” the “Shabach” position (restraint on a low chair with hands tied behind the back, head covered, loud music), stress positions such as “frog crouch,” and sleep deprivation beyond what naturally resulted from questioning.
- The State justified the practices as necessary to prevent imminent loss of life, including “ticking bomb” situations, and emphasized the grave and ongoing threat of terrorist attacks.
- The petitions were heard together as original proceedings seeking orders to show cause, requiring judicial review of whether the executive had lawful power to authorize these interrogation methods.

## Issues

1. Whether the GSS had legal authority under existing Israeli law to employ the challenged physical interrogation methods.
2. Whether the Penal Law “necessity” defense can serve as prior legal authorization for coercive interrogation directives, rather than only as an ex post defense to criminal liability.

## Decision

- The court (nine-justice panel) held the GSS lacked the required legal authority to use the challenged interrogation methods under the existing legal framework.
- The court ruled that coercive methods such as shaking, the Shabach position, and similar stress techniques could not be treated as lawful interrogation tools absent express legislative authorization.
- The court held the Penal Law necessity defense does not provide advance authority for an administrative regime permitting physical pressure; it may operate only as an individualized, post factum defense in criminal proceedings.
- Although the petitions were formally denied, the interrogation directives were found to lack legal basis, requiring the security services to refrain from the challenged methods unless and until authorized by legislation.
- A concurring justice agreed with the result but suggested delaying implementation to allow legislative consideration of how to address extreme emergency scenarios.

## Legal Principles

- Government agencies must act under the principle of legality; executive power, including security interrogations, requires a clear legal source and cannot rest on implied or extra-legal authority.
- Human dignity protections under constitutional norms bar interrogation methods amounting to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; ordinary investigative discomfort does not justify coercive physical means.
- The “necessity” doctrine in criminal law is a personal defense that may excuse otherwise unlawful conduct in exceptional cases; it cannot be converted into a standing, prospective authorization for institutional directives.
- Acute security threats do not create a lawful “grey zone” outside statutory and constitutional limits; any exceptional interrogation powers must be defined, if at all, by the legislature.

## Conclusion

The court required security interrogations to remain within existing statutory authority and constitutional limits, rejecting administrative authorization for coercive physical methods and limiting “necessity” to an individualized ex post defense rather than a basis for prospective interrogation policy.


Pub. Comm. Against Torture in Isr. v. State of Isr., HCJ 5100/94 (Isr. 1999)