Judgments of the Israel Supreme Court: Fighting Terrorism within ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

proportion between the benefit to the public and the damage to the citizen. The proportion between the benefit and the damage – and it is also possible to say the proportion between means and objective – must be proportionate. Zamir, id., at 131. This subtest weighs the costs against the benefits. See Stamka, at 776. According to this subtest, a decision of an administrative authority must reach a reasonable balance between communal needs and the damage done to the individual. The objective of the examination is to determine whether the severity of the damage to the individual and the reasons brought to justify it stand in proper proportion to each other. This judgment is made given the background of the general normative structure of the legal system, which recognizes human rights and the necessity of ensuring the provision of the needs and welfare of the local inhabitants, and which preserves “family honour and rights” (Regulation 46 of the Hague Regulations). All these are protected in the framework of the humanitarian provisions of the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Convention. The question before us is: does the severity of the injury to local inhabitants, by the construction of the separation fence along the route determined by the military commander, stand in reasonable (proper) proportion to the security benefit from the construction of the fence along that route? 60. Our answer is that the relationship between the injury to the local inhabitants and the security benefit from the construction of the separation fence along the route, as determined by the military commander, is not proportionate. The route undermines the delicate balance between the obligation of the military commander to preserve security and his obligation to provide for the needs of the local inhabitants. This approach is based on the fact that the route which the military commander established for the security fence – which separates the local inhabitants from their agricultural lands – injures the local inhabitants in a severe and acute way, while violating their rights under humanitarian international law. Here are the facts: more than 13,000 farmers (falahin) are cut off from thousands of dunams of their land and from tens of thousands of trees which are their livelihood, and which are located on the other side of the separation fence. No attempt was made to seek out and provide them with substitute land, despite our oft repeated proposals on that matter. The separation is not hermetic: the military commander announced that two gates will be constructed connecting each 48
of the two villages to its lands, by using a system of licensing. This state of affairs injures the farmers severely, as access to their lands (early in the morning, in the afternoon, and in the evening), will be subject to restrictions inherent to a system of licensing. Such a system will result in long lines for the passage of the farmers themselves; it will make the passage of vehicles (which themselves require licensing and examination) difficult, and will distance the farmer from his lands (since only two daytime gates are planned for the entire length of this segment of the route). As a result, the life of the farmer will change completely in comparison to his previous life. The route of the separation fence severely violates their right of property and their freedom of movement. Their livelihood is severely impaired. The difficult reality of life from which they have suffered (due, for example, to high unemployment in that area) will only become more severe. 61. These injuries are not proportionate. They can be substantially decreased by an alternate route, either the route presented by the experts of the Council for Peace and Security, or another route set out by the military commander. Such an alternate route exists. It is not a figment of the imagination. It was presented before us. It is based on military control of Jebel Muktam, without “pulling” the separation fence to that mountain. Indeed, one must not forget that, even after the construction of the separation fence, the military commander will continue to control the area east of it. In the opinion of the military commander – which we assume to be correct, as the basis of our review – he will provide less security in that area. However, the security advantage reaped from the route as determined by the military commander, in comparison to the proposed route, does not stand in any reasonable proportion to the injury to the local inhabitants caused by this route. Indeed, the real question in the “relative” examination of the third proportionality subtest is not the choice between constructing a separation fence which brings security but injures the local inhabitants, or not constructing a separation fence, and not injuring the local inhabitants. The real question is whether the security benefit reaped by the acceptance of the military commander’s position (that the separation fence should surround Jebel Muktam) is proportionate to the additional injury resulting from his position (with the fence separating local inhabitants from their lands). Our answer to this question is that the military commander’s choice of the route of the separation fence is disproportionate. The gap between the security provided by the military commander’s approach and the security provided by the alternate route is minute, as compared to the large difference between a fence that separates the local inhabitants from 49
Page 1: Judgments of the Israel Supreme Cou
Page 5 and 6: Introduction This volume is a compi
Page 7 and 8: Israel's Security Fence HCJ 2056/04
Page 9 and 10: months after the decision, the gove
Page 11 and 12: eached new heights of violence. In
Page 13 and 14: (4) The fence, like the other obsta
Page 15 and 16: fence, and will be called to locati
Page 17 and 18: to make it possible are illegal. Se
Page 19 and 20: they intend to erect permanent chec
Page 21 and 22: prior to reconvening, we granted (o
Page 23 and 24: and not a security border. The secu
Page 25 and 26: See HCJ 390/79 Duikat v. Government
Page 27 and 28: a system of roads can be done for r
Page 29 and 30: y local inhabitants, and that this
Page 31 and 32: The obligations and rights of a mil
Page 33 and 34: person and the inviolable character
Page 35 and 36: Gasser, Protection of the Civilian
Page 37 and 38: injury to the individual must do so
Page 39 and 40: starting point is the assumption, w
Page 41 and 42: the area. We stand, therefore, befo
Page 43 and 44: of that activity. The fact that the
Page 45 and 46: will be affected by the route of th
Page 47: Our answer to this question necessi
Page 51 and 52: eveals that along this part of the
Page 53 and 54: seen, it is possible to lessen this
Page 55 and 56: lives of the local inhabitants caus
Page 57 and 58: 76. Is the damage caused to the loc
Page 59 and 60: Order no. Tav/110/03 81. This order
Page 61 and 62: We are aware that this decision doe
Page 63 and 64: infrastructure” - limiting its ab
Page 65 and 66: HCJ 7957/04 1. Zaharan Yunis Muhamm
Page 67 and 68: grenades, shooting attacks, mortar
Page 69 and 70: (2) The obstacle built pursuant to
Page 71 and 72: to us, part of the separation fence
Page 73 and 74: allows residents of the enclave to
Page 75 and 76: judgments that were handed down sin
Page 77 and 78: 16. It is sometimes necessary, in o
Page 79 and 80: are occurring, and that therefore i
Page 81 and 82: a necessary deduction as the milita
Page 83 and 84: Even if the military commander acte
Page 85 and 86: The rights granted to Israelis livi
Page 87 and 88: the point of view of a state's righ
Page 89 and 90: shall be protected especially again
Page 91 and 92: preservation of the order and safet
Page 93 and 94: 78 “Al Taliyeh” Weekly v. The M
Page 95 and 96: issuing the orders or in the proces
Page 97 and 98: D. The Advisory Opinion of the Inte
Page 99 and 100:
Gush Etzion settlement bloc and the
Page 101 and 102:
of Nazlat Issa, where a wall 800 m
Page 103 and 104:
data, along with the high cost of t
Page 105 and 106:
3. The Legality of the Fence in Int
Page 107 and 108:
the wall, many Palestinians will li
Page 109 and 110:
uilding of a wall) fall within self
Page 111 and 112:
Beit Sourik Case. The ICJ held that
Page 113 and 114:
data is wide and deep. This differe
Page 115 and 116:
minimal factual basis is manifest,
Page 117 and 118:
necessary for achieving the securit
Page 119 and 120:
the information relayed to the ICJ
Page 121 and 122:
upon highway 6 - terrorist infiltra
Page 123 and 124:
However, this statement - which exp
Page 125 and 126:
is approximately 1,200). The enclav
Page 127 and 128:
threatens to disenfranchise them of
Page 129 and 130:
3. The State's Response 84. In its
Page 131 and 132:
opened under highway 55. Fourth, Th
Page 133 and 134:
which will be decided in the perman
Page 135 and 136:
time, surveys along the planned rou
Page 137 and 138:
The seamline area is intended to bl
Page 139 and 140:
the separation fence had not yet be
Page 141 and 142:
living primarily from growing sheep
Page 143 and 144:
the Ras a-Tira gate, the Habla gate
Page 145 and 146:
een shot on it from the direction o
Page 147 and 148:
Justice A. Procaccia I concur in th
Page 149 and 150:
characterize the factual aspect of
Page 151 and 152:
worship, because Bethlehem had turn
Page 153 and 154:
of Jerusalem’s municipal border.
Page 155 and 156:
of movement would be impinged upon
Page 157 and 158:
in which it attaches to the tomb. I
Page 159 and 160:
decision to pave the road and erect
Page 161 and 162:
worshippers from terrorist attacks,
Page 163 and 164:
intention to alter the route, and e
Page 165 and 166:
Freedom of religion and worship . .
Page 167 and 168:
private and public property and fre
Page 169 and 170:
freedom located at the highest leve
Page 171 and 172:
p. 369; H.C.J. 4044/93 Salomon, at
Page 173 and 174:
person to leave the country is diff
Page 175 and 176:
“separation obstacle” route sep
Page 177 and 178:
Reduction in the severity of the ne
Page 179 and 180:
19. Petitioners further argue that
Page 181 and 182:
that the solution chosen by respond
Page 183 and 184:
The "Early Warning" Procedure HCJ 3
Page 185 and 186:
Supreme Court Justice Beinish, conc
Page 187 and 188:
A. The Petition and the Course of i
Page 189 and 190:
for any military acts such as 'the
Page 191 and 192:
efore there is a need to use force,
Page 193 and 194:
more people regarding the use of Pa
Page 195 and 196:
14. Petitioners argue that one can
Page 197 and 198:
17. Respondents contend that the us
Page 199 and 200:
21. Just as it is clear that an arm
Page 201 and 202:
a zone in which combat activity is
Page 203 and 204:
the family members living in the ho
Page 205 and 206:
of the very protected resident who
Page 207 and 208:
accompanied by armed army forces, t
Page 209 and 210:
Prisoner Release HCJ 1671/05 Almago
Page 211 and 212:
HCJ 1671/05 Almagor - Organization
Page 213 and 214:
ecommendations for release were not
Page 215 and 216:
is unreasonable. The demand that tw
Page 217 and 218:
taking risks. That, it seems to me,
Page 219 and 220:
Palestinian Islamic organization, H
Page 221 and 222:
HCJ 11026/05 A v. 1. The Commander
Page 223 and 224:
easonable basis for the assumption
Page 225 and 226:
grants the military commander the a
Page 227:
decision is reasonable, and that th
show all

Judgments of the Israel Supreme Court: Fighting Terrorism within ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?