A/HRC/20/32 order of six months, which was subsequently reduced to four months. She was also the victim of an abusive arrest that in some respects resembled the experience of Mr. Adnan, but was even more violent, including to Ms. Shalabi’s family members who were present: as many as 100 soldiers making the arrest at her place of residence, rough physical handling, blindfolding, and humiliating insults, including of a brother who tried to protect his sister. After being taken to the Salem Detention Center, Ms. Shalabi was reportedly subject to further beatings, humiliating treatment, and other clear and severe violations of her rights. She began her hunger strike at the outset of this new period of administrative detention. The parents of Ms. Shalabi were also on a hunger strike in solidarity with their daughter. After she had gone more than 40 days without food, Ms. Shalabi’s physical condition was reported to be life threatening and deteriorating. Respecting her rights to refuse food, medical experts of the Israeli Prison Service formally declined to mandate force-feeding to end the strike. Her appeal was rejected by a military tribunal that refused to shorten her period of administrative detention, citing secret evidence that she constituted a security threat. The Palestinian Authority’s Minister of Prisoners’ Affairs reported that Israel had offered to release Ms. Shalabi if she could be transferred from her West Bank home to either Gaza or Jordan, in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention’s prohibition against forcible removal of a protected person from the territory under occupation. On 1 April, Ms. Shalabi was indeed transferred to Gaza on this basis, and barred from returning to her home and family in the West Bank for three years. Aspects of Ms. Shalabi’s case have the appearance of a being vindictive response by Israel to her strong opposition to the practice of administrative detention. 12. Both of these highly publicized hunger strikes exhibit the extreme dedication to risk life itself to protest against the practice of administrative detention, especially the use of administrative detention absent any proof of a genuine security threat and the unduly harsh and terrifying Israeli arrest procedures. These developments have called attention to other complaints associated with administrative detention as used against a variety of Palestinians with no known connection to violent activism, as well as to 26 members of the Palestinian Legislative Council who have been detained without charges for several years for no apparent reason other than that they were elected in the 2006 elections. These hunger strikes have not only highlighted the violative use by Israel of administrative detention, but also have mobilized others currently held in detention to engage in open-ended hunger strikes and activated Palestinian solidarity initiatives among Palestinians living under occupation and others elsewhere. For instance, there is a large public mural in a public space in Belfast, Northern Ireland with images of Mr. Adnan and Ms. Shalabi and statistics about overall Palestinian imprisonment. So far, Israel has exhibited no disposition to abandon, or even review, its reliance on administrative detention as a regular aspect of occupation, or other contentious aspects of its prison policy, including its unlawful transfer of prisoners outside of the territory held under occupation. Israel did relent slightly at the last hour in relation to Mr. Adnan, reaching an agreement with his lawyer, seemingly to avoid having a hunger striker die and become a martyr for his people, which might possibly have sparked Palestinian resistance activity. 13. It is the judgment of the Special Rapporteur that the use of administrative detention, other than in rare circumstances where a demonstration of extraordinary and imminent security justification supported by evidence is made before a judge in conference with the lawyer of the defendant, who is given an opportunity to contest evidence and charges, constitutes a violation of the rights of a protected person under international law. Several provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention make unlawful the arrest and detention procedures relied upon by Israel in its treatment of Ms. Shalabi. Article 3, paragraph 1, contains the general directive that all persons held by an occupying authority ―shall in all circumstances be treated humanely‖, which is elaborated upon in article 27 in a manner relevant to Ms. Shalabi’s treatment: ―Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to 7