LONDON: Hussam Abu Safiya, a doctor detained in Gaza, says Israeli prison guards have continued to beat him, including on sensitive parts of his body, deprive him of sleep and warn him not to disclose the conditions of his confinement to his lawyer, according to an Israeli human rights group. Physicians for Human Rights Israel said on Wednesday that the Israel Prison Service also continues to delay an independent medical examination of Abu Safiya, despite his recent transfer to a prison medical facility. “Dr. Abu Safiya’s latest testimony confirms that the pattern of deliberate abuse against him is continuing,” the organization said. He described “ongoing violence, sleep deprivation and threats aimed at preventing him from reporting the conditions of his detention to his lawyer,” it added. “His medical condition requires further assessment and treatment, yet the (prison service) continues to delay access for an independent physician. The repeated testimonies and mounting evidence of harm only heighten the urgency of an immediate independent medical examination.” Abu Safiya, director of Kamal Adwan Hospital in northern Gaza, has been held by Israel without charge or trial since December 2024. During a legal visit on Aug. 30, Abu Safiya told his lawyer that guards had beaten him in recent weeks with their hands, boots and batons, according to an affidavit filed by the lawyer. Abu Safiya said the assaults targeted several parts of his body, including sensitive areas. He also said guards intentionally disrupted his sleep by making noise and using the prison public-address system at night. Following a previous visit by his lawyer, Abu Safiya said, he was assaulted and warned not to reveal details about the conditions in which he was detained. The latest testimony comes as Physicians for Human Rights Israel pursues legal action in an attempt to secure an independent medical assessment of Abu Safiya. It asked the Israel Prison Service on July 7 to allow Dr. Amit Tirosh, an internal medicine specialist, to examine him. When prison authorities did not approve the request, Abu Safiya, through the rights organization, petitioned the Administrative Court. The Prison Service has sought an additional extension to file its response, but Physicians for Human Rights Israel argued that there was no justification for further delay and an independent examination was increasingly urgent because of Abu Safiya’s reported health problems. According to an update the rights organization received from Abu Safiya, he was transferred on Aug. 10 from the underground Rakefet detention facility, where was held in isolation, to the Israel Prison Service medical facility at Ramla Prison, also known as Marash. He remained there for about a week and underwent examinations that identified several medical issues, the organization said. In court filings, it said the transfer alone indicated that Abu Safiya had significant medical needs that could not be adequately addressed in an ordinary prison facility. It argued that the circumstances therefore warranted an independent medical second opinion. The latest testimony adds to earlier accounts of abuse during Abu Safiya’s detention. During previous lawyers’ visits, he was reported to have suffered injuries to his head, face and other parts of his body. He said the violence had continued after his lawyer requested an urgent medical examination. Medical records from the Israel Prison Service provided to Physicians for Human Rights Israel documented an injury to Abu Safiya’s left eye and noted complaints he made to prison medical staff about head and chest injuries. Separately, the Israeli Supreme Court is considering a petition by the rights group seeking the release of 14 Palestinian doctors from Gaza, including Abu Safiya, who are being held without charge or trial. The court ordered the state to clarify by Sept. 13 whether the military chief of staff, or an official legally authorized to act on the chief’s behalf, had specifically considered the request to release the doctors. The state was also ordered to identify who exercised that discretion, if it was exercised, and explain whether the professional status of the physicians was considered.