Following a petition submitted by HaMoked, it was decided not to extend a detention order against a Palestinian who has been held in administrative detention for approximately two and a half years: The Petitioner was held in detention despite the fact that details about a terror attack in which he was accused of being indirectly involved were first forwarded to the court by his counsel and in view of the Israel Security Agency's (ISA) failings, the failure to undertake an investigation to confirm or refute the suspicions on account of which he had been held for a protracted period of time

On 11 February 2007 HaMoked submitted a petition to the High Court of Justice (HCJ) against the Military Commander, the Military Appeals Court judge, and the ISA demanding the release of a Palestinian resident of the village of Beit Rima from administrative detention. The Petitioner, who has no criminal or security record, was arrested in August 2004 on the basis of confidential information, and his administrative detention was extended repeatedly over a protracted period. Up to the of submission of the petition, the Respondent had not decided on what suspicions he was holding the Petitioner. On one occasion it was alleged that he had “conceived of the idea of the attack;” on another, that he had “initiated” the attack; while in a third instance he was only said to have “provided information.” Moreover, one of the decisions of the Military Appeals Court was based on erroneous information presented by the Respondents relating to a different detainee. 

During the course of the Petitioner’s detention, the court ordered several times that he be interrogated, but no effective interrogation was undertaken. Thus, for example, the Petitioner was interrogated by a person who was unfamiliar with the confidential material. The interrogator questioned the Petitioner regarding his membership in Fatah – Tanzim, whereas all the detention orders, except the first order, claim that he is a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Following these defective interrogations, a judge performing judicial review on 27 August 2006 decided the detention must be shortened, and ordered that the Petitioner must be interrogated by “an interrogator familiar with the case and with the actual suspicions against him.” 

Following this interrogation, during which the Petitioner was informed that he was suspected of involvement in an attack committed in his village, his counsel received detailed information from her contacts in the village regarding the attack. The information included, inter alia, the names of the perpetrators of the attack and the fact that they were being held in detention in criminal proceedings. She forwarded this information to the judge performing judicial review of the order to extend the detention issued against the Petitioner subsequent to the interrogation. In this judicial review, the judge ordered that the Petitioner be released on 13 October 2006. An appeal submitted against this decision by the military prosecution included “new intelligence material” that suddenly emerged, two years after the initial administrative detention. The court accepted the appeal and nullified the decision to release the Petitioner from administrative detention, although it determined that the extent of the Appellant’s involvement in the attack was unclear. 

Following the issuing and approval of the additional administrative detention order in the judicial review, a petition was submitted to the HCJ on 11 February 2007 demanding that the Petitioner be released from administrative detention or prosecuted immediately. The Petitioner was released before the HCJ heard the petition.  

To view the petition dated 11 February 2007 (Hebrew) 

To view the state’s response dated 20 February 2007 (Hebrew)