[Ynet] Medical opinion submitted to military court finds no evidence of external forces leading to detainee's injury, supporting appeal of 5 soldiers arrested for alleged abuse.
Medical report suggests injury to terrorist detained at Sde Teiman self-inflicted
Medical opinion submitted to military court finds no evidence of external forces leading to detainee's injury, supporting appeal of 5 soldiers arrested for alleged abuse
A medical report presented Thursday suggests that the injury to a Palestinian terrorist detained at the Sde Teiman detention facility was self-inflicted rather than caused by external forces.
The opinion, authored by Prof. Alon Pikarsky, head of the Department of General Surgery at Hadassah Ein Kerem Medical Center in Jerusalem, was submitted to the military court in Beit Lid. The court is hearing the appeal of five Israeli soldiers accused of aggravated assault and sexual offenses against the detainee.
The terrorist was hospitalized last month with a rectal tear, raising suspicions of abuse by guards at Sde Teiman. In response, masked military police were dispatched to apprehend the guards, who are reserve soldiers, on suspicion of inflicting the injuries.
Videos showing the bewildered reservists resisting arrest quickly went viral on social media, igniting widespread outrage. Large crowds stormed both the Sde Teiman facility and the Beit Lid complex, where the reservists were taken by military police.
The incident has sparked nationwide controversy and drawn global attention to the treatment of Palestinian prisoners, particularly terrorists who took part in the October 7 massacre, in Israeli detention facilities, raising concerns about human rights violations.
Prof. Pikarsky's report, based on the terrorist's medical records, says that there was no evidence of trauma to his anus upon arrival at the hospital. He noted that a CT scan, during which contrast agent was introduced via the anus, revealed no unusual difficulties or problems.
After the rectal tear was discovered, the terrorist underwent surgery that included a manual examination of the anus, which again found no signs of trauma.
"And then they put an eel! And a lime!..."
Prof. Pikarsky expressed skepticism about the external insertion of a foreign object, concluding that such an insertion, especially of a large object like a baton or broomstick, would have required trauma to the anus, leaving clear signs of injury. He suggested that self-insertion by the detainee could cause a rectal tear without affecting the anus, as the person inserting the object could do so gently to avoid trauma.
Ultimately, Prof. Pikarsky concluded that the medical evidence, which showed no anal trauma, supports the idea of self-insertion rather than external insertion. 
|
