Annual Report - Palestinian Center for Human Rights

development forced Dr. K’meil Mansour, the secretary general of the committee to
develop the judiciary and justice, to submit his resignation; thus halting the
committee’s work indefinitely.
Articles 36, 65 and 103 of the new law violate the Basic Law, amended on 13 August
2003, particularly articles 100 and 107. These two articles stipulate that any
legislation relevant to the judicial system must be referred to the Higher Council of
the Judiciary. In addition, these two articles indicate that the appointment of the
Attorney-General must be based on a nomination by the Higher Council of the
Judiciary.
On 14 November 2005, PCHR submitted an appeal against the new judicial authority
law to the Higher Constitutional Court. The appeal was based on the violations
within the new judicial authority law of the amended Basic Law, which serves as the
constitution of the PNA. The Higher Constitutional Court held its first session on the
case on 19 November 2005. The court decided to delay the case until 26 November
2005, in order to inform representatives of the two defendants about the court session
date and the appeal. The representatives were the Attorney-General, on behalf of the
President of the PNA, and the PLC Speaker, representing the PLC.
In the court session of 26 November 2005, the Attorney-General’s office pushed for
dropping the case on the basis of form and content. However, the court panel rejected
the form objections and decided to look into the content of the appeal. The Attorney-
General’s office denied neglecting the Higher Council of the Judiciary and not taking
its opinion in to account. They claimed that consulting the Higher Council of the
Judiciary meant informing it of the law but not necessarily implementing its
recommendations. The Attorney-General’s office admitted that article 65 of the new
law violates article 107 of the amended Basic Law. Yet, the office claimed that the
PLC is working on amending article 107 of the Basic Law in order to conform with
article 65 of the new judicial authority law.
PCHR’s lawyers replied to the Attorney-General’s office argument and refuted the
points raised against the appeal. In addition, the Center’s lawyers presented written
documentation to the effect that article 65 of the new judicial authority law violates
article 107 of the amended Basic Law; and that articles 36 and 103 of the new judicial
authority law are a constitutional violation of article 100 of the amended Basic Law.
The Higher Constitutional Court held a session on 27 November 2005 to consider the
appeal under its constitutional jurisdiction. The court convened under Judge Sa’ada
El-Dajani, and with the assistance of Judges Yehya Abu Shahla, Fawzi Abu Watfa,
Amin Wafi, and Mazen Sesalem. The first defendant, the President of the PNA, was
represented by the Assistant Attorney-General, Munir El-Oqabi. In addition, the
representative of the second defendant, the PLC, was absent. The court decided that
the new judicial authority law was unconstitutional. The decision stated, “In the name
of the Arab Palestinian people, the verdict is: the court decided that the Judicial
Authority Law #15 of 2005, published in issue 60 of the Palestinian Legal Journal of
9 November 2005, is unconstitutional. The court considers this law as if it was never
passed, as per the decision issued and declared publicly in the session of Sunday, 27
November 2005.”
69