E/CN.4/1993/26 page 67 Israel Information transmitted to the Government and replies received thereon 284. By letter dated 21 August 1992 the Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government of Israel a summary of the main allegations received with regard to the practice of torture in the country as well as a number of individual cases. In addition to this, the Special Rapporteur made urgent appeals on behalf of persons who, according to the information received, were at risk of being tortured. (a) Information transmitted to the Government with regard to the practice of torture in general. 285. According to the information received, the Israeli authorities in the Occupied Territories systematically use interrogation practices which amount to torture or ill-treatment. Methods include beatings, forced postures (shabeh), sensory disorientation (primarily through hooding, sleep and food deprivation, and isolation), and the use of sensory stress (through chilling and confinement in small cells, often called "coffin-cells" or khazayen by detainees). It was also reported that under the Israeli military justice system in the Occupied Territories, detainees' access to judges is routinely withheld for 18 days, and access to lawyers and family for much longer periods. 286. In theory, protection against the use of confessions obtained by duress exists in the military courts of the Occupied Territories. If a defendant maintains that a confession was so obtained, the defendant's lawyer can challenge the confession in a so-called "trial within a trial" or "mini-trial". In this proceeding, generally held in camera, the prosecutor is meant to prove the voluntary nature of the confession. The prosecutor calls witnesses involved in obtaining the confession and the defendant in turn gives evidence of the alleged abuses used to coerce a confession. If the prosecution fails to prove that the confession was made voluntarily, it becomes inadmissible and must be disregarded by the court in the subsequent full trial. 287. This safeguard, however, reportedly fails to operate effectively in practice. Lawyers maintain that in a "trial within a trial", judges often automatically accept the testimony of witnesses of the prosecution and reject that of defendants. Defendants who have often been held in prolonged incommunicado detention have no witnesses to call on their behalf. Other factors deter lawyers from seeking "trials within trials". The invocation of such a proceeding necessarily delays the hearing of a case. For a defendant charged with a relatively minor offence, therefore, the choice of a "trial within a trial" may mean that he or she will be kept in detention awaiting such a procedure for a longer period than might be expected to be served as a sentence were a guilty plea entered from the start. In addition judges, as well as prosecutors, reportedly often remind defendants and their lawyers that pleading guilty and saving the court the time and effort of a "trial within a trial" would be considered a mitigating factor of sentencing.