A/HRC/28/80 Israeli authorities to transfer them to three centralized sites (see A/69/348, paras.12-16). Forcible transfer would be in violation of article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (see A/69/348, para.53 and CCPR/C/ISR/CO/4, para. 9). It is expected that the Israeli Higher Planning Council will make a decision on the objections presented to the plan by the communities affected before mid-2015. According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), such decisions may be reviewed by the Supreme Court of Israel. 24. The Israeli Civil Administration has been taking actions aimed at facilitating such a transfer by creating a coercive environment, including by issuing demolition, seizure and stop work orders against structures belonging to the Bedouin communities affected, restricting access to grazing lands and markets for their products, and limiting the issuance of building permits (see A/69/348, paras.12-16). According to UNRWA, there were 229 demolitions of Bedouin-owned structures, including 129 concerning residential structures during the period under review. 5. Situation in East Jerusalem 25. The situation in East Jerusalem deteriorated significantly during the period under review, which witnessed demonstrations by Palestinians, an increase in incidents involving the use of force by Israeli security forces resulting in Palestinian casualties, and attacks by Palestinians on Israelis (see A/HRC/28/80/Add.1). The significance of East Jerusalem and its holy sites makes it a sensitive trigger point for friction and violence and its status of central importance to any peaceful resolution of the conflict. 6. Detention 26. Non-governmental organizations and lawyers with access to Israeli detention facilities reported to OHCHR many allegations of torture and ill-treatment of detainees by Israeli authorities, particularly by the Internal Security Agency. These allegations were consistent with reports received in previous years;13 for example, an Israeli nongovernmental organization documented allegations of the use by the Agency of incommunicado detention, sleep deprivation, beatings (slapping, kicking and punching), stress positions, strangulation and prolonged shackling. 14 It expressed particular concern that, in the aftermath of the abduction and murder of three Israeli youths, detainees were at a heightened risk of torture and ill-treatment.15 27. To date, no crime of torture under international law has been incorporated into legislation in Israel; “defence of necessity” continues to be legal, and is used as a possible justification of torture (see CCPR/C/ISR/CO/4, para. 14). This compounds the longstanding concern at the apparent complete lack of accountability for allegations of torture and ill-treatment. For more than a decade, not a single criminal investigation has been opened into hundreds of complaints lodged against the Internal Security Agency. 16 While the appointment in February 2014 of a new civilian inspector responsible for handling complaints within the Agency marked a minor improvement in the system of accountability, as at October 2014 no criminal investigation had been opened for at least a decade (see CCPR/C/ISR/CO/4, para. 14). 13 14 15 16 Public Committee against Torture in Israel, “Activities and Achievements 2013”,. See also CCPR/C/ISR/CO/4, para. 15. See Public Committee against Torture in Israel (PCATI), “Activities and Achievements 2013”, and, its submission to the Human Rights Committee, 112th session, 14 September 2014, pp. 14-26. PCATI submission, pp. 20-24. PCATI submission, p. 6. 7