Violence of soldiers at checkpoints: Compensatory claim filed by HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual against the state and the commander of the Qalandiya checkpoint for assault of a young Palestinian man who was returning from Jerusalem, where he had undergone surgery on his hand, and wanted to cross the checkpoint.

Background: Checkpoints in the West Bank and actions taken by HaMoked
The checkpoints set up on roads in the West Bank are one of the focal points of human rights violations in the Occupied Territories. According to B’Tselem, the military currently has thirty-nine staffed permanent checkpoints in the West Bank. The harm to Palestinians wanting to cross the checkpoints includes arbitrary delay, confiscation of identity cards, and rude and humiliating behavior of soldiers, which at times turns to violence.

Because of the nature of the rights violated at checkpoints, immediate intervention is required. Thus, HaMoked operates an emergency hotline that seeks to cope with the problems at checkpoints when they occur or as quickly as possibly thereafter. To achieve its objective, HaMoked contacts officials at the Civil Administration, the District Coordination Offices, and even soldiers in the field. In most cases, HaMoked’s intervention solves the problem; sometimes, however, much time passes before favorable results are achieved. In many cases, as in the case before us, a request for assistance handled by the Emergency Hotline receives more extensive handling later on, including actions taken by HaMoked to get the authorities to investigate the case and prosecute the persons responsible. At times, HaMoked files a claim for compensation.

Description of the incident
On 23 July 2002, at about 2:00 P.M., the plaintiff, 21, a resident of Anata Hahadasha, a Jerusalem neighborhood, arrived at the Qalandiya checkpoint.  Two days earlier, he had undergone an operation on his left hand at Hadassah Hospital, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem. He wanted to cross the checkpoint to go to Kafr Aqeb to sleep at his cousin’s house. His left hand was in a cast as a result of the surgery.

The plaintiff did not feel well as a result of the surgery, and he bypassed the line and walked toward the checkpoint. A soldier at the checkpoint ordered him to return to his place and wait in line. The plaintiff handed the soldier the letter of discharge from the hospital.

At this stage, the soldier beat the plaintiff all over his body, using his hands, legs, and weapon. The soldier was not satisfied with what he had done, and threatened the plaintiff, saying, “I’ll break your other hand.” People who were waiting in line went over and rescued the plaintiff from the hands of the soldier. The other soldiers at the checkpoint fired into the air.

The commander of the checkpoint, who was called “Moshiko” by the soldiers, appeared. The soldier who assaulted the plaintiff told the commander that the plaintiff had struck him. The plaintiff showed the commander the letter of discharge and explained that he wanted to cross the checkpoint rapidly – because of the surgery he had undergone, it was hard for him to stand in the sun for a long time. The commander told the plaintiff that the letter of discharge did not say it was forbidden for him to stand in the sun, and that he intended to keep him at the checkpoint until 7:00 P.M. The commander also took the plaintiff’s identity card. The plaintiff asked for it back, but the commander refused. The plaintiff decided to cross the checkpoint without his identity card.

The plaintiff met his father on the other side of the checkpoint and told him what happened. The two of them went to the checkpoint. The father asked a soldier at the checkpoint to return the identity card to his son, but the soldier refused and pushed the plaintiff’s father. The plaintiff told the soldier who had pushed his father, “You should be ashamed, shoving an older man.” Another soldier at the checkpoint went over to the plaintiff and hit him on the right side of his chest with the butt of his weapon.

The plaintiff and his father left the Qalandiya checkpoint in the direction of the A-Ram checkpoint. On their way, they called to the police in Neve Ya’akov, a Jerusalem neighborhood, to complain and request help. The official who answered the phone said that the Police were not in contact with the army, and could not assist. At the A-Ram checkpoint, the plaintiff told an activist from the organization Machsom Watch, a woman named Dina, what happened. She went to the Qalandiya checkpoint and attempted to get the plaintiff’s identity card. She spoke with an officer named Ofer, who told her that the plaintiff had struck soldiers and that the soldiers did not retaliate. She did not manage to get the plaintiff’s identity card.

HaMoked’s contact with the authorities and the filing of the court action
One day after the incident, the plaintiff went to the Police station in the Russian Compound, in Jerusalem, and filed a complaint about the incident. He also sought the assistance of HaMoked, which sent a letter to the Central Command’s judge advocate and to the legal advisor for the West Bank demanding an investigation of the incident. Simultaneously, the Emergency Hotline contacted the soldiers at the Qalandiya checkpoint and managed to obtain, four days after the incident, the plaintiff’s identity card.

HaMoked continued its activity on behalf of the plaintiff. About six months after the incident, HaMoked received a letter from the legal advisor for the West Bank, indicating that the subject of the correspondence was not within his area of authority, but within that of the Central Command’s judge advocate. A week later, the Central Command’s judge advocate informed HaMoked that an order had been given to open a Military Police investigation of the incident.

In late March 2003, the Central Command’s judge advocate informed HaMoked that the investigation file had been closed – no evidence was found to support the plaintiff’s claim that he had been beaten, and, as regards his identity card, it was taken from him to check it, and the plaintiff left the area without waiting to have his identity card returned to him.

On 6 April 2003, HaMoked contacted the Central Command’s judge advocate and requested a copy of the investigation file. Eleven months passed before permission was granted to photocopy the file. On 17 March 2004, HaMoked received the censored investigation material from the military Spokesperson’s Office.

On 22 November 2004, HaMoked filed a claim for damages against the commander of the checkpoint and against the State of Israel for pain and suffering, loss of earnings, and for the humiliation and insults that he suffered as a result of the incident. In the statement of claim, the plaintiff contends that the state – either directly or indirectly, through the commander and other soldiers who were its agents – was responsible for assault, breach of the state’s statutory obligations, and negligence. The claim further states that the soldiers abused their authority by taking the law into their hands, and used excessive force against the plaintiff, without proper reason. The statement of claim also argues that the state failed to use proper caution to prevent the repetition of assaults of Palestinians at checkpoints, despite the existence of directives and orders. In addition, the plaintiff argues that, because the investigation file was closed without prosecuting those involved, the state transmitted a message to other soldiers that assault of Palestinians is permissible.