HaMoked has petitioned the HCJ on behalf of a judge at the Sharia Appeal Court, demanding that he be enabled to travel between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (and vice versa) for the purpose of his work: The respondent’s refusal to grant him a permit to travel between the two parts of the Territories gravely injures his ability to monitor the alimony funds system; to coordinate between the rulings of the various Sharia courts; and to guide the workers in the alimony system

The appellant is a judge in the Sharia Appeal Court, and serves as the legal advisor to the Chairman of the Supreme Council for Sharia Law under an order of appointment issued by the chairperson of the Palestinian Authority. The Sharia courts in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip operate as a single system. His function includes responsibility and general supervision of the alimony funds in the Sharia courts in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which alleviate the difficulties faced by women and children who do not receive alimony from the father of the family. The appellant studied the management of Sharia legal systems in Egypt and Jordan and recently completed a series of studies in these countries regarding their alimony fund programs. 

In order to implement the program in the Palestinian Territories, the appellant must collect by himself significant data and adapt the program to meet the needs of the population in the Occupied Territories. Travel between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank is necessary, among other reasons, in order to prepare the future infrastructure for coordination between the rulings of Sharia courts in the Territories and those in Israel. Coordination of the rulings is extremely important in cases in which one of the partners is a resident of the Territories and the other is a resident of Israel. 

The military authorities have prevented the appellant from traveling to the West Bank. In a petition dated 30 April 2007, HaMoked argues that the military’s position is unlawful, since the Gaza Strip and the West Bank constitute a single territorial unit. In other words, this is a single social and political unit that extends over two areas of territory that are not geographically contiguous. This reality is recognized both in the declarations made by the State of Israel in international agreements in which it undertook not to hamper the passage of Palestinians between the two sections of the Palestinian Authority and from the rulings of the HCJ in several cases. This was agreed in section 5 of the Declaration of Principles, Israel undertook (in item 1(2) of the First Annex to the Interim Agreement), as well as in several additional agreements, and accordingly the “Safe Passage” was implemented for an entire year. 

The state itself made a similar claim in the Ajuri HCJ case (70152/02), and the court reinforced its position, establishing that “in social and political terms, the two regions are perceived by all those involved as a single territorial unit.” 

The military’s refusal to provide the appellant with permits to enter Israel in order to travel from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank injures his right to dignity and freedom of movement, and constitutes a violation of the obligations incumbent on the occupying power to enable protected persons to move within the occupied territory. The right to freedom of movement is established, inter alia, in Article 12(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was signed and ratified by Israel, which states that “Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.” By restricting the appellant’s ability to act as a judge, the authorities of state are injuring the protected population which, under the terms of the Geneva Convention, is to be protected and its rights ensured.