E/CN.4/1996/35/Add.1 page 74 399. On 20 September 1995 the Government replied that Khaled Farraj had been released on 16 May 1995 after investigations had been completed. Because of complaints of maltreatment, an investigator from the Ministry of Justice questioned the persons who had interrogated him. According to those interrogators, Khaled Farraj had stated to them that he suffered from asthma and was thus given special consideration during the course of the investigation. He was under continuous medical supervision and his health was found to be satisfactory. Khaled Farraj had failed to respond to requests to meet with the investigator. It is difficult adequately to investigate any allegation of wrongdoing if the detainee making the complaints refuses to give his version of events. The findings of the Ministry of Justice did not indicate any basis upon which action should be taken against those involved in his interrogation. 400. On 23 October the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal concerning proposed legislation drafted by a special interministerial committee, which was reportedly about to come before the Israeli Parliament (Knesset). The purpose of the legislation was to incorporate the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment into the domestic law of Israel. According to an unofficial translation of the text, torture was to be defined in the bill as "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, except for pain or suffering inherent in interrogation procedures or punishment according to law". While noting with satisfaction that the Government was taking measures towards the incorporation of the Convention against Torture into its national law, the Special Rapporteur expressed serious concern that the effect of the bill would be to legalize practices that are irreconcilable with the purposes of the Convention (to prohibit, prevent and punish both the crime of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment). Neither the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights nor the Convention against Torture allow for any derogation from the proscription against the use of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and it was difficult to conceive of acts which carry severe pain or suffering that would not amount to torture or prohibited cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Since most torture in most countries takes place during interrogation and given the realities of the Landau principles and the seriousness of the allegations received of ill-treatment of detainees often amounting to torture, it seemed that the exception in the proposed bill was precisely calculated to provide for the law to define torture, so as to permit rather than to prohibit it. The Special Rapporteur appealed to the Government to refrain from adopting legislation that authorizes agents of the Government to use torture under any circumstance and urged that the proposed legislation be reformulated to reflect unambiguously the principle of the non-derogability of the prohibition against torture. 401. On 5 November 1995 the Government informed the Special Rapporteur that the proposed amendment to the Penal Law was a proposal for a draft and would have to undergo various stages of the legislative process before it could be tabled at the Knesset in the form of a bill. Internal discussions were under way with regard to the proposal and the points raised by the Special Rapporteur would be addressed in the framework of those discussions. The tendency would be to ensure that the provisions would conform to the Convention against Torture.