Annual Report - Palestinian Center for Human Rights

emedy to those within its jurisdiction that have been victims of human rights
violations by the IOF.
These amendments are contrary to international humanitarian law and Israeli’s
responsibility as an ‘Occupying Power’. International humanitarian law governs
situations of occupation and Article 3 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 (Annexed to
the Fourth Hague Convention) provides that “A belligerent party which violates the
provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay
compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part
of its armed forces”. The Hague Regulations are widely considered customary
international law (including by the Israeli High Court of Justice) and thus binding on
all States.
Furthermore, the law is contrary to international human rights instruments to which
Israel is a party to including Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. Article 2(3) provides “Each State Party to the present Covenant
undertakes: (a) to ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms are herein
recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the
violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
Consequently, nine human rights organizations in Israel and the OPT, including
PCHR, filed a petition to the Israeli High Court demanding that the Court declare void
the amendments to the Civil Wrongs (Liability of the State) Law. 37 In the petition,
the organizations emphasized that the Law grossly violates the fundamental principles
of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, which apply in
the OPT. The petitioners further argued that the Law sends out a dangerous and
extreme message that the lives and rights of those injured in a “Conflict Zone” have
no value, as the courts will not come to their aid, and those who caused their injuries
will face no punishment. As a result, the Law is both immoral and racist. The
petitioners also argued that the articles of the Law de facto terminate monitoring of
the Israeli military’s activities in the OPT, and discourage investigating and bringing
those responsible for cases of death or injury before the courts. This includes cases in
which damage was caused by the random or deliberate opening of fire; torture and
abuse; and looting and theft of civilian property. The Law thus violates the
fundamental rights to life, equality, dignity and property, as well as the constitutional
right of access to the courts.
The Israeli High Court decided that the petition would be considered in February
2006, as the amendments to the law entered into force on 10 August 2005, according
to which a 6-month period was decided to specify the operation zones where
Palestinians are deprived of compensation for damage incurred by them. PCHR
demands the Israeli High Court to accept the petition submitted by the nine human
rights organizations and declare void the amendments to the Civil Wrongs Law, as a
first step to removing all administrative restrictions and complications imposed on the
rights of victims of Israeli war crimes to demand compensation from the Israeli
37 The petition was submitted by HaMoked, Adalah, ACRI, Al-Haq (West Bank), The Palestinian
Centre for Human Rights (Gaza Strip), B’Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights, The Public
Committee Against Torture in Israel, Rabbis for Human Rights, by Addalah Attorneys Hassan Jabareen
and Orna Kohn, Hamoked Attorney Gil Gan-Mor, and ACRI Attorney Dan Yakir.
48