E. Implementation of fraudulent computer systems in the Israeli courts (2002-2010) [vii, viii, ix]
The 2012 Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission for the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Human Rights in Israel, was probably the first of its kind -- a Human Rights report, which was primarily based on data-mining and analysis of computer systems of the courts and prisons, but not on review of individual cases of Human Rights abuse.
By January 2013, the Human Rights Alert submission was incorporated into the UPR Report of the Human Rights Council of the UN with the note: "Lack of integrity of the electronic records of the Supreme Court, the district courts and the detainees courts in Israel."
The report documented that:
* Through events surrounding the death of then Chief Clerk Shmaryahu Cohen in 2002, the electronic record systems of the Supreme Court were seriously compromised;
* Since 2002 the Supreme Court issues only invalid decision records "subject to editing and phrasing changes";
* Numerous Supreme Court records have been falsified since 2002, and
* Chief Clerk Sarah Lifschitz has appeared since 2002 as "Chief Clerk" with no lawful appointment record: Her appointment was never published in the official Register, the Administration of Courts refused to present her appointment record in response to a Freedom of Information request, claiming that it was exempt as a record of "internal deliberations", and Ms Lifschitz herself also refuses to respond on requests to presnt her appointment record.
* The new computer system systems of the Israel courts amount to large-scale fraud on the people, and enable judges to issue sham court records, falsify court records, and conduct sham court process.
The Human Rights Alert submission to the United Nations also relied on the State of Israel Ombudsman's Report 60b (2010), which concluded that development and implementation of such systems was conducted in violation of the law of the State of Israel: [ x ]
* Contracts were signed with IBM, EDS with no bidding of tender;
* Contracts included no technical specification;
* Development proceeded with no core supervision by State employees;
* Implementation was concluded with no prior independent examination by State employees, and
* The process involve removal of the servers of court records from the custody of the clerks of the courts to the custody of an unnamed corporation.
