Security Prisoner
Security Detainee
Administrative Detainee
HCJ 8091/14 - HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual et al. v. Minister of Defense et al. Judgment
Judgment | 8091/14 | 31.12.2014
Judgment dismissing a public petition filed by HaMoked and seven other human rights organizations. The court rules that Israel has the authority to demolish houses pursuant to Regulation 119 of the Defense (Emergency) Regulations, and that the aim of such demolition is deterrence rather than punishment. However, the court stresses that the authority to demolish houses must be exercised in a proportionate manner and only against perpetrators of particularly severe acts. The court rules that the actual deterrence achieved by house demolition should be examined in future, and therefore, henceforth, the court will ask the state to present concrete evidence for effective deterrence.
The HCJ's decisions over the planned punitive demolitions of four homes in East Jerusalem and in the general petition against this punitive policy: the general petition was rejected; three of the homes may be demolished and the state must justify again the planned demolition of the fourth home
The court denied the general petition filed by HaMoked and other human rights organizations against the punitive house demolition policy: the court ruled that the state had the authority to demolish houses, but it should exercise it proportionately
State to HCJ: No room for further review of punitive house demolitions after general petition filed by HaMoked against it was dismissed
In a legal opinion from 1968, then legal advisor of the Israeli foreign ministry determines that punitive demolition of houses in the OPT contradicts international law: HaMoked and other human rights organizations request the court to hold a further, expanded hearing in the general petition recently rejected
The HCJ dismissed the motion for further hearing before an expanded panel in the public petition against punitive home demolitions: Court President Naor ruled that “this petition, at the time it was filed, was not the optimal vehicle for the applicants’ arguments…” (02) 627 1698   (02) 627 6317

red-id | רד אינטראקטיב