CAT/C/ISR/CO/4 page 4 of the Israel Security Agency (ISA) Law 5762-2002, “an ISA employee (…) shall not bear criminal or civil responsibility for any act or omission performed in good faith and reasonably by him within the scope and in performance of his function”. Although the State party reported that Section 18 has not been applied to a single case, the Committee is concerned that ISA interrogators who use physical pressure in “ticking bomb” cases may not be criminally responsible if they resort to the necessity defense argument. According to official data published in July 2002, 90 Palestinian detainees had been interrogated under the “ticking bomb” exception since September 1999. The Committee reiterates its previous recommendation that the State party completely remove necessity as a possible justification for the crime of torture. The Committee requests that the State party provide detailed information on the number of “ticking bomb” Palestinian detainees interrogated since 2002. Basic safeguards for detainees 15. The Committee is concerned that while the Criminal Procedure Law and the Prisons Ordinance stipulate conditions under which detainees are entitled to meet promptly with a lawyer, these can be delayed, subject to written requests, if it puts the investigation at risk, prevents disclosure of evidence, or obstructs the arrest of additional suspects, and securityrelated offenses or terrorism charges permit further delays. Notwithstanding the safeguards provided by law and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Israel in its 2006 decision on the case Yisacharov v The Head Military Prosecutor et. al., C.A. 5121/98, for ordinary cases, there are repeated claims of insufficient legal safeguards for security detainees. The Committee also notes with concern that the 2006 Criminal Procedure Law allows detention for up to 96 hours of persons suspected of security offenses before being brought before a judge – although the State party claims a majority of cases are brought within 14 hours– and up to 21 days without access to a lawyer– despite the State Party’s claim that more than 10 days is “seldom used”. The Committee calls upon Israel to examine its legislation and policies in order to ensure that all detainees, without exception, are promptly brought before a judge and have prompt access to a lawyer. The Committee also emphasizes that detainees should have prompt access to a lawyer, an independent doctor and family member, these are important means for the protection of suspects, offering added safeguards against torture and ill-treatment for detainees, and should be guaranteed to persons accused of security offenses. 16. While appreciating the adoption of the Criminal Procedure (Interrogating Suspects) Law of 2002, which requires that all stages of a suspect’s interrogation be recorded by video camera, the Committee notes with concern that the 2008 amendment to this law exempts interrogations of detainees accused of security offenses from this requirement. The State party has justified this on budgetary limitations and stated that the exemption of security-related suspects will only apply until December 2010. Video recording of interrogations is an important advance in protection of both the detainee and, for that matter, law enforcement personnel. Therefore, the State party should, as a matter of priority, extend the legal requirement of video recording of interviews of detainees accused of security offenses as a further means to prevent torture and ill-treatment.