Center for the Defence of the Individual - The Jerusalem Magistrates' Court denied a tort claim submitted by HaMoked on behalf of the family of the perpetrator of the attack on the Sbarro restaurant in 2001, whose house was demolished by the army: The Court ruled that the demolition was conducted in a professional and considerate manner and with the maximum degree of care, unparalleled in other armies
العربية HE wheel chair icon
חזרה לעמוד הקודם
20.05.2009

The Jerusalem Magistrates' Court denied a tort claim submitted by HaMoked on behalf of the family of the perpetrator of the attack on the Sbarro restaurant in 2001, whose house was demolished by the army: The Court ruled that the demolition was conducted in a professional and considerate manner and with the maximum degree of care, unparalleled in other armies

HaMoked submitted the petition on 3 August 2004, on behalf of the father and brother of the perpetrator of the attack on the Sbarro restaurant, after the military arrived in the village of 'Aqqaba, in the Jenin District, and demolished the house in which the entire extended family resided, including the perpetrator.

The army arrived in the village unannounced, did not present a demolition order and informed the brother, who was living with his wife and children in the house, that they had only 25 minutes in which they could attempt – unassisted - to salvage part of their property, and after which the house will be demolished. Furthermore, the soldiers forbade the family to remove certain objects from the house, such as furniture. After 25 minutes, the soldiers placed a large amount of explosives inside the house and exploded it. The blast destroyed the house and caused extensive damage to other buildings and property in the area.

In the statement of claim, the plaintiffs argue that the demolition of the house was conducted unlawfully, and the State must compensate them for the damages caused to their property, as a hearing was not conducted in the matter, and the demolition was executed without a demolition order, by trespassing. Additionally, the demolition violated the plaintiffs' basic right to property and dignity, and the manner in which it was undertaken tramples the principles of international humanitarian law, which prohibits collective and vengeful punishment. International humanitarian law also demands that the occupying power respect private property within the occupied territory, and permits the destruction of property only when it is absolutely necessary for the purpose of military operations. Since, in this case, the demolition was not absolutely necessary, the State must bear both direct and vicarious liability for the demolition and the substantial damages it caused to the plaintiffs.

On 5 April 2009 the Court denied the claim as baseless and ruled that the demolition, which was executed months after the attack on Sbarro, constitutes a wartime action in hostile territory, and as such, exempts the State from paying compensation to those harmed by the action. In its judgment, the Court added that the demolition was lawful despite the fact that the plaintiffs were not granted a hearing in which they could have argued against the demolition, and although an order was not issued. The Court claimed that advance notice would have endangered the lives of the soldiers involved and thwarted the demolition. Furthermore, despite the widespread damage caused by the blast, which included, inter alia, the killing  of livestock, uprooting of trees, destruction of cars and damage to adjacent buildings, the Court ruled the demolition had been conducted professionally and in a controlled manner, with the highest degree of responsibility and caution, which no other army in the world would exercise. Even the 25 minutes the family was given to remove their possessions from the house seemed reasonable to the Court. And as if this is were not enough, the judge added in his ruling that the only reason he did not charge the family with legal costs was that he did not believe it would be possible to collect.

To view the judgment dated 5 April 2009 (Hebrew)

To view the claim dated 3 August 2004  (Hebrew)

Related topics