After the expiry of the sixty-day period set by the court, at the state’s request, for the state to file its response in HaMoked’s petition regarding the authorities’ failure to respond to requests, HaMoked has now filed an application for an order nisi: Surprisingly, the High Court of Justice (HCJ) asked to receive the state’s response “as soon as possible,” without setting any date and without criticizing the State Prosecutor’s Office, which habitually fails to meet deadlines set by the court

In September 2007 HaMoked petitioned the HCJ asking that a Palestinian woman be permitted to visit her husband in an Israeli prison after she had not been allowed to see him for some four years. HaMoked also asked the court to instruct the military to answer its requests on this matter after ignoring these for over two and a half years. In its response, the state claimed that the visit should not be permitted due to security reasons. Regarding the failure to answer HaMoked’s requests, the state claimed that “due to an error, notification [of refusal] was not send to the petitioners.” 

In a hearing on 4 November 2007 the court established that the application of the Palestinian woman – who, as noted, had not been permitted to see her husband imprisoned in Israel for some three and half years – would only be reconsidered in another three or four years, due to classified security grounds. In the petition, HaMoked also argued against the military’s conduct after it failed to respond to requests from HaMoked and the petitioner herself for over two and a half years. In this matter the court ruled that the state must file its response within sixty days. 

On 15 January 2008, after 70 days had passed, HaMoked filed an application for an order nisi ordering the state to examine HaMoked’s claim that its requests had gone unanswered for over two and a half years, and to undertake “a general examination regarding response times in similar applications and the lessons drawn therefrom.” On 23 January 2008 Justice Procaccia asked “to receive the response as soon as possible.” 

Surprisingly, the court declined to set a deadline for the filing of the response. Neither did it see fit to criticize the state for its habitual arrears in filing its responses. 

To view the court decision dated 23 January 2008 (Hebrew) 

To view HaMoked’s application for an order nisi dated 15 January 2008 (Hebrew) 

To view HaMoked’s petition dated 6 September 2007 (Hebrew)