in his case were too innumerable to mention them. During his imprisonment our son was transformed from a healthy person to a mentally ill
boy. When he was released from the military prison (he was in the prison more then 3 months; no charges were posed against him, no court
took place) the military medical committee recognized him as a mentally ill person. When he was just imprisoned he was recognized as a
fully healthy person suitable to the military service.He received some treatment here, in Canada, and the immigration board know it. We did
everything we could to release our son from the military prison. But the civil lawyers refused to take his case as soon as they heard about
the conflict with the army. Some of them assaulted us refusing to take the case.We demanded a military lawyer but the military
commandature in Jaffo denied us a military lawyer. We turned to all the possible places like Israel Bar Association, human rights
organizations, Sharansky's Zionist Forum, Israel and foreign media, state officials: nobody couldn't or didn't want to help us. Then we
decided to send a letter to Amnesty International. A friend of us - a dissident and a journalist Lev G. - has contacted Amnesty International
and later submitted several faxes to them. When the authorities realized that we complained to Amnesty International they released our
son from the military prison.
We couldn't live in Israel any more after what happened to us and to our son there, and also because we were afraid that our son can be
arrested again if we will stay in Israel. The only reasonable solution for us was to escape. And the only way to do it was to become refugee
claimants. We flied to Montreal in November, 1994.
We have submitted all the documentary proof we had to support our claim to the immigration board (committee). We also sincerely
described what happened to us in our claim's atory without any distortion or exaggeration. But what happened to us in the immigration
courtroom and between and after our 2 hearings is just incredible...
Why We Think Our Human Rights Were Violated By the Court?
Inside The Courtroom:
1)Some of the main documentary proofs (statements, affidavits, letters, receipts, articles, ect.) were ignored as if they never existed.
2)Other extremely important documents were mentioned but were ignored (if not - they might be an obstacle to what the judges
incriminated us). 3) Other documents (including Amnesty International's confirmation of our complain) were mentioned as incomplete proof
of particular events, when in reality they were given to support other events. In the same time documents which relate to these events were
ignored. 4) The same way our words were ignored, too. For example, I was asked an insinuating question. My answer closed that question
by a clear and unbeatable conterargument. So, what then? Then the same insinuation was repeated - but this time in an affirmative form:
As if I said nothing. The same question could be given 2, 3, 5 times non-stop. If I gave the same answer again and again they shouted on
me, used threats, aggression, incredible accusations to force me to change my answer. It's clear that such a method violates moral and
legal norms - and any hesitation by a refugee claimant under such an illegal psychological pressure can not be taken into consideration. 5)
Too often they questioned us giving us no rights to response. They shuted us down replacing our eventual answer by their own - and later
based their conclusions not on our answers but on their own statement posing it as our - not their - words. 6) It was repeated again and
again that they doubt about our rights to appeal (for a refugee status) because our actions (when we were in Israel) weren't a good
solution. As examples of "good solutions" were mentioned: A demolition of our family, a criminal offense - and so on! 7) Several times the
bord members expressed their dissaproval by the norms of democracy or by my aproval of the democracy laws. It is absolutely clear that our
case was treated not according to Canadians laws but according to the rules and norms of Israel since - in the judges' eyes - we belong not
to Canadien but to Israeli jurisdiction. This position - neither being ordered to the bord or being the product of the board itself - made the
courtroom a part of Israel's territory. 8)The procedure of our immigration hearing wasn't an investigation in our case but a pure pro-Israel's
propaganda. It's goal wasn't to detect whether or not our claim for refugee status is justified but to defend the image of Israel as a "good"
country in an imprudent and abusing form. The depersonalization of our claim was done in an extreme form ignoring our personal history.
So the only criteria chosen to support the bord's point of view was the very fact that we came from Israel. But the only admissible attitude to
refugees is to base the decision on what happened to them personally, not on which country they flied. 9)The members of the board
