- 28 (c) The decision by the Government of Israel not to initiate legislation that would authorize the use of physical means in interrogations conducted by the police or the ISA; (d) The Israeli Supreme Court decision of April 2000 according to which the continued detention of Lebanese detainees held in Israel who did not constitute a threat to national security could not be authorized and the subsequent release of many Lebanese detainees; (e) Torture; Israel’s regular contribution to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of (f) The provision of prompt judicial review of persons under detention upon their petition to the Supreme Court; (g) The transfer, in 1994, of the responsibility for investigation of complaints against the ISA to the Ministry of Justice; (h) The creation of a judicial commission of inquiry into the events of October 2000, which resulted in the death of 14 persons. C. Factors and difficulties impeding the application of the Convention 51. The Committee is fully aware of the difficult situation of unrest faced by Israel, particularly in the Occupied Territories, and understands its security concerns. While recognizing the right of Israel to protect its citizens from violence, it reiterates that no exceptional circumstances may be invoked as justification of torture (art. 2, para. 2, of the Convention). D. Subjects of concern 52. The Committee expresses concern about the following matters: (a) While acknowledging the importance of the September 1999 Supreme Court decision, the Committee regrets certain of its consequences: (i) The ruling does not contain a definite prohibition of torture; (ii) The Court prohibits the use of sleep deprivation for the purpose of breaking the detainee, but stated that if it was merely incidental to interrogation, it was not unlawful. In practice, in cases of prolonged interrogation it is impossible to distinguish between the two conditions; (iii) The Court indicated that ISA interrogators who use physical pressure in extreme circumstances (“ticking bomb cases”) might not be criminally liable as they may be able to rely on the “defence of necessity”;