Muhammad Othman, 33, a resident of Jayyus, Qalqiliya District, was arrested at the Allenby Bridge on 22 September 2009 as he was returning to Ramallah from Norway. Othman, an activist in the struggle against construction of the Separation Barrier, had gone to Norway to hold meetings and give lectures regarding the struggle.

Othman's detention was extended a few times by the military court until 22 November, when the Military Appeals Court ruled that he must be released since the military prosecution had not shown any progress in the investigation and had failed to provide any evidence or basis for any charges against him. The next day, 23 November, OC Central Command signed an order administratively detaining Othman for three months and two days. The military court subsequently approved the order.

The fact that Othman was placed in administrative detention after two months of detention, during which the Judge Advocate General's Office was unable to draft an indictment, demonstrates Israel's prohibited use of administrative detention.

Administrative detention is a deterrent, not a punitive, means, so it may not be used as a substitute for punishment of the detainee for his past acts. Administrative detention is legally justified only under exceptional circumstances, when the person poses an immediate danger to state security and other means have been shown to be ineffective in preventing the danger. The person's past acts may not be used to justify administrative detention, except to the extent that they indicate that he poses a future threat.

As a result, it is clear that the prosecution's failure to gather evidence that justifies the filing of an indictment against Othman for acts he allegedly committed does not justify holding him in administrative detention. In such cases, the administrative detention becomes an illegal substitute for criminal punishment.

In the sixty days during which Othman was detained, the prosecution contended that he needed to be held in custody for investigation, and submitted privileged material to the court that Othman and his attorney were not permitted to see. His transfer to administrative detention after being held in custody for two months, during which he was not formally charged with any offense, strengthens the suspicion that this measure serves, in this case, as an easy and cheap alternative to a criminal prosecution: when the authorities failed to prosecute him for offenses he was ostensibly suspected of, they decided to administratively detain him, a procedure in which the level of proof necessary to warrant the detention is significantly lower than in a criminal action and most of the information remains privileged.

For years, B'Tselem has objected to Israel's sweeping use of administrative detention. As stated in the report that B'Tselem and HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual recently published, during the second intifada, Israel held more than 1,000 Palestinians in administrative detention at one time. In recent months, there has been a steady drop in the number of administrative detainees: on 30 September 2009, Israel held 335 Palestinians in administrative detention, among them three women and one minor. Some 37 percent of the detainees have been held for six months to one year, some 33 percent for one to two years, and 28 Palestinians now being held have been in administrative detention for two years to four years without interruption. One Palestinian has been administratively detained for more than four and a half years.

The report stresses that one of the main problems in the administrative-detention procedure is that most of it is privileged, and therefore it does not meet accepted due-process standards. The judicial-review apparatus regarding administrative detention creates a semblance of a fair legal system. In practice, however, it denies the detainees any possibility to reasonably defend themselves against the allegations made against them. In the great majority of cases, the judges declare the evidence privileged and suffice with written reports submitted to them by the Israeli Security Agency in the absence of the detainee and the detainee's attorney. This practice makes it impossible for the detainee to refute the allegations against him or to present alternative evidence.

B'Tselem reiterates its long-standing demand that Israel release all the administrative detainees or prosecute them, where the evidence warrants it, in accordance with the due-process standards set forth in international law.