Center for the Defence of the Individual - HaMoked to MAG: Transfer the file on the killing of a Tulkarm resident, shot by soldiers in 2001 for talking on the phone, to the attorney general in order to bring those responsible to justice
العربية HE wheel chair icon
חזרה לעמוד הקודם
15.08.2013

HaMoked to MAG: Transfer the file on the killing of a Tulkarm resident, shot by soldiers in 2001 for talking on the phone, to the attorney general in order to bring those responsible to justice

On October 31, 2001, soldiers killed a Palestinian resident of Tulkarm while he was parking his car in his sister's yard. The Military Police Investigation Unit began investigating the incident about 18 months later, and only after HaMoked's intervention. It took 18 more months for the testimonies of the soldiers and commanders involved in the incident to be collected. The investigative material indicated that the deceased was not a threat to anyone's life at the time he was shot and that the decision to execute him - because of a suspicion that he had acted as a lookout and directed gunfire toward military posts - had been made in advance. The soldiers shot him without making any attempt to arrest him, using weapons that, as they themselves put it, "can only kill".


Seven years after the incident, and only after HaMoked petitioned the HCJ to instruct the military advocate general (MAG) to make a decision with respect to indicting the individuals responsible for the execution, the MAG announced that the investigation file had been closed. Two-and-a-half years later, the military prosecutor rejected HaMoked's appeal against the decision to close the investigation file, claiming that the soldiers came under the "necessity defense".


On July 26, 2012, HaMoked petitioned the HCJ to instruct the military to try the soldiers involved in the man's killing, given that this was an assassination. HaMoked argued, inter alia, that the action taken against the deceased was not a legitimate measure taken to save lives, but rather it constituted an arbitrary killing.


During the hearing of the petition, counsel for the soldiers argued that the soldiers had been discharged from the military years before and therefore, should not be tried under the Military Adjudication Law which applies up to a year from the date of discharge. They argued that limitations applied also under civilian criminal law. HaMoked argued that the delay in bringing charges against the soldiers was the result of omissions by the military prosecution, that the investigation file should be transferred to the attorney general in order to put the individuals involved to trial under civilian criminal law and that in any case, the offenses in question did not come under the statute of limitations as they were severe. The court deleted the petition in July 2013, subject to a clarification made by the state that the MAG would consider transferring the file to the attorney general, should the petitioners approach him with such a request.


Following the judgment, HaMoked contacted the MAG on August 4, 2013, requesting to transfer the investigation file to the attorney general for consideration of action against the persons involved in the killing. HaMoked noted that the evidence contained in the file raised grave concern that very serious offenses, which are not subject to limitations, had been committed and that a decision to uphold the MAG's decision to close the file would constitute a carte blanche for killing civilians only on suspicion that they are involved in hostilities and even at times when they are not engaging in actions that threaten lives. HaMoked added that a decision not to transfer the file for consideration by the attorney general would be extremely unreasonable. It would leave this case, with its severe outcome, impervious to proper scrutiny because of technical reasons having to do with negligence on the part of military law enforcement agencies, which prolonged processing of this case for about ten years.

Related topics