The prison administration stressed, in a clarification in response to the allegations published on the page of the wife of the above-mentioned detainee reporting "a humiliating search of his cell, the seizure of some of his belongings and the prohibition of any communication with his family", that contrary to the allegations published by the wife of the person concerned, it is not a question of "humiliating search" but of a measure applied within the framework of the procedure applied in the case of detainees who start a hunger strike and which applies to all the inmates without any exception".
Regarding "the prohibition of any communication with his family", added the clarification, "this is an unfounded allegation, since the interested party enjoys his right to communicate with his family via the institution's landline telephone in accordance with the program established for this purpose, and he has never been deprived of benefiting from this right", pointing out, however, that the aforementioned inmate refused to benefit from his right to communicate via the institution's landline telephone.
The same source noted that the prisoner (S. R) "enjoys all his rights that are legally conferred within the prison, and that the notification of his entry into hunger strike, which he submitted, has nothing to do with the circumstances of his detention, knowing that the management of the institution tried to intervene to dissuade him from continuing his strike in view of the serious repercussions of this decision on his health, an initiative that he rejected, thus placing the administration in the obligation of his placement under medical supervision under the supervision of the medical staff of the institution".
"Based on all the above, the prisoner in question is responsible for the consequences that may result from his entry into the hunger strike, as well as his family and all parties that push him to start this strike, and coordinate between him and the prisoner (O.R) in order to put pressure on the State and circumvent the judicial path of their two cases still before the court”.