3. With regard to the exposure of prisoners to cold air, he had taken note of the observations made by the representative of Israel.
4. Mr. LAMDAN (Israel) said that his Government would respond in due course to the Committee's conclusions and recommendations; for his part, he would merely communicate his initial reaction. He began by thanking the Committee for its serious-minded approach to the consideration of Israel's report and the preparation of its conclusions and recommendations, which were, however, disappointing because it was not the case that Israel used torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment when interrogating terrorists. The Committee had chosen to give credence not to the Government's report but to the totally unfounded hearsay evidence of non-governmental organizations. He took issue in particular with paragraph 5 of the conclusions, which stated that Israel had not denied that unacceptable methods were systematically applied in Israel. Israeli law prohibited the use of methods that were inconsistent with the Convention in any circumstances and the High Court had never legitimized such methods. Interrogations were conducted in strict compliance with the guidelines and were subject to constant and independent supervision. He pointed out that a State's primary responsibility was to protect human life and that Israel was faced with the agonizing dilemma of trying to save lives while abiding by the Convention; its openness and honesty had been poorly rewarded. At all events, he would communicate the Committee's conclusions and recommendations to his Government, which would study them carefully.
5. The CHAIRMAN thanked the Israeli delegation for the frank and open dialogue which had taken place and which he hoped would continue in the interests of all concerned when the second periodic report of Israel was considered.
6. The Israeli delegation withdrew.