Center for the Defence of the Individual - Human rights organizations to the HCJ: the death penalty law must be repealed, and an interim injunction issued to prevent its implementation pending a ruling; the law is racist, unconstitutional, and contrary to international law
العربية HE wheel chair icon
Back to previous page
04.04.2026

Human rights organizations to the HCJ: the death penalty law must be repealed, and an interim injunction issued to prevent its implementation pending a ruling; the law is racist, unconstitutional, and contrary to international law

On April 1, 2025, HaMoked joined a petition to the High Court of Justice (HCJ) against the “Death Penalty for Terrorists Law, 5786–2026,” filed by Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, along with six human rights organizations and Members of Knesset. The Court was requested to order the repeal of the law and to issue an urgent interim injunction preventing its implementation pending a ruling. The petitioners argued that the law is racist and discriminatory, intended to apply to Palestinians only and not to Jews, and that it severely and disproportionately violates the right to life. It was further argued that the law is unconstitutional, contradicts international law, and gravely undermines due process and judicial independence.

On March 31, 2026, the Knesset approved the Death Penalty for Terrorists Law, 5786–2026” by a majority of 62 to 48. The law, which was passed through an expedited procedure while exploiting the state of emergency resulting from the war with Iran, requires the military commander to impose the death penalty for the intentional killing of an Israeli citizen or resident, where the act is defined as terrorism and carried out by residents of the West Bank. The law does not apply to West Bank residents who are Israeli citizens, but only to Palestinians. It also requires courts in Israel to impose the death penalty on Israeli citizens tried before them, where it is determined that the intentional killing of a citizen or resident was carried out “with the intent to negate the existence of the State of Israel under circumstances of a terrorist act.”

The petition argues that the law is drafted to apply only to Palestinians and not to Jews. The exclusion of West Bank residents who are Israeli citizens—i.e., settlers—together with the vague requirement that the act be committed “with the intent to negate the existence of the State of Israel,” clearly targets the Palestinian population. The law thus entrenches systemic discrimination by establishing one system of punishment for Jews and another for Palestinians. Moreover, applying a law enacted by the Knesset to residents of occupied territory subjects them to the laws of the occupying power. This is contrary to international law and constitutes a further step toward the de facto annexation of the West Bank.

It is further argued that the law removes many safeguards commonly applied in death penalty cases, rendering it anti-democratic and increasing the risk of executions based on wrongful convictions. It establishes death as a mandatory sentence for Palestinians, without requiring the request of the persecution; allows no judicial discretion or consideration of circumstances; requires no special majority; provides no possibility of pardon; and limits the time for carrying out the sentence to 90 days, precluding appeals or re-examination of evidence. The law thus imposes an irreversible punishment—the deprivation of life—without a fair and measured process.

Although the death penalty existed in Israeli law prior to this, it was subject to strict limitations ensuring its application only to the most serious crimes under Israeli and international law. One such case is the crime of genocide, for which the senior Nazi commander Adolf Eichmann was sentenced to death in 1962—the last execution in Israel. The petitioners warned that the law would transform Israel from a de facto abolitionist state into one with one of the most permissive and extreme death penalty regimes in the world, applied in a discriminatory manner to a single population group.

The Court ordered the State to submit a preliminary response and a reply to the request for an interim injunction by May 24, 2026

 

Related documents

No documents to show