On November 29, 2015, HaMoked filed an
urgent appeal to the Appeals Tribunal, requesting it to instruct the Ministry of Interior to give the full 30-day period customarily allotted for submission of written arguments against the
state’s intent to revoke the Israeli residency status of four young men from East Jerusalem, suspected of committing attacks against Israelis. According to the revocation notices served to the four men, the 30 day period given for submission of written arguments to the Minister of Interior – to be considered at the end of that period before final decision is made – began on the issuance date of the notices, as per Ministry protocols. The status revocation proceedings the state has been vigorously promoting, is just one of numerous punitive measures implemented by the Government of Israel against Palestinians, including those who were born in East Jerusalem, decedents of families living here for generations.
HaMoked reiterated that the state’s execution of the proceedings for revoking the Israeli status of the four young men was substantively flawed in several ways. The deadline of
December 8, 2015, set by the Ministry of Interior for submission of written arguments against the intended revocations was unacceptably short. The submission of notices to the four was fundamentally deficient: the notices were served long after their date of issuance; they were not delivered to HaMoked, representing the four in the proceedings; and moreover, they were provided in Hebrew only, and not in Arabic. HaMoked asserted that a decision on status revocation was fateful, and therefore the lawyers must be given the full period of time stipulated by law for submission of arguments against the current revocations proceedings.
Despite
HaMoked’s repeated requests to the Ministry to duly amend the deadline, and give 30 days for submission in each of the cases, beginning from the day the revocation notices were delivered to the young men’s legal representatives, the Ministry continues to wrongfully ignore this fundamental demand for the full response time the four are entitled to. In the appeal, HaMoked noted that, “insofar as the outcome of a governmental decision is more severe and irreversible, so is it necessary that the person concerned be allowed to voice his arguments and present his response to the claims against him, in an attempt to refute them”.
With the appeal, HaMoked asked the Tribunal to issue a temporary injunction (given immediately) and an interim order (which takes longer to issue and replaces the injunction) so as to suspend the revocation proceedings pending the Tribunal’s decision on the appeal.
In a response, arriving
just a few hours after the appeal was filed, the Ministry of Interior announced that the submission period was extended; HaMoked therefore
requested to delete the appeal.
