deprived of their liberty based on allegations by security agencies which neither prosecutors nor courts could review. A third concern relates to the release of detainees on bail. Prior to or during the trial, First Instance Courts may decide to release a defendant on bail. This often happens in cases where the charges against the persons are not dangerous, or reconciliation between the family of the victim and the accused has occurred. ISTIQLAL observed that, in cases where defence attorneys submitted applications to the Court to order the release of a defendant, the Court often dismissed such motions with a summary decision, without even convening a hearing in the presence of the parties. ISTIQLAL believes that such behaviour by the Courts may have seriously impaired the defence’s ability to challenge the grounds for detention, thus creating a risk that the defendant’s right to personal liberty is violated. c) Detention vs other measures to ensure integrity of criminal proceedings Courts in Palestine often resorted to the arrest of the defendant, also in cases involving lenient criminal offences. In fact, law enforcement authorities arrested defendants almost by default when they discovered the perpetration of a criminal offence. For instance, ISTLQLAL monitored a case where defendants were arrested for crimes such as stealing two cans of milk or, as already mentioned, attempted theft in a place of worship. As shown in Chart 19, on average, over 50% of defendants tried by First Instance Courts in the West Bank and over 75% of those tried in the Gaza strip were in pre-trial detention, and so were over 60% of defendants tried by the High Crimes Court. Chart 19 - Accused detained vs accused at liberty (% of cases) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% At liberty 20% Detained 10% 0% 42