العربية
HE
العربية
HE
On the morning of 27 May 2003, at about 11:00 am, a Palestinian minor and resident of Tulkarem finished his day’s studies at Al-Fadliya School in the city. He left the school and set out for his home. Along the way he stopped by a restaurant located near Gamal Abdel Nasser Square where he encountered a number of school children who began to throw stones at a military jeep parked nearby. Security force personnel, probably Border Police officers, were seated in the jeep. Suddenly shots were heard from the direction of the jeep. The minor was injured in the torso and collapsed. The students laid their injured friend on the doorstep of a nearby pharmacy. The pharmacist tried to provide first aid, but the Border Police officers prevented him from doing so, aiming their weapons at him and threatening to shoot. A while later, a Red Crescent ambulance arrived on the scene. The minor was evacuated to hospital in Tulkarem; shortly after arrival he was pronounced dead.
For five years HaMoked has been attempting to cause the relevant authorities to investigate the incident properly and prosecute those responsible. An investigation was only launched in July 2004, following HaMoked’s requests – over a year after the incident. Some two and a half years later, the case was forwarded to the State Attorney’s Office, where some eighteen months passed before a decision was made as to whether to prosecute those responsible or close the case. HaMoked contacted the Central District Attorney’s Office no fewer than thirteen times asking for a substantive answer regarding the fate of the investigation file. On 12 June 2008, a reply was finally received from the District Attorney’s Office stating that on 19 May 2008, the day after the petition was submitted, it was decided “to close the case due to absence of guilt.”
The authorities’ handling of suspected criminal actions includes several stages: Receiving a complaint, launching an investigation, conducting the investigation, and collecting evidence. After the investigation is completed, the file is forwarded to the State Attorney’s Office, which decides between criminal prosecution, disciplinary action, or closure of the case. The petition is confined to the latter stage of the process, although the authorities were slow to act in all the other stages, and their handling of the case far exceeded any reasonable timeframe. It should be noted that the the investigative material is disclosed to the complainant only after the Attorney’s Office reaches its decision. The complainant requires this material in order to appeal against the closure of the case or submit a civil suit for compensation.
HaMoked emphasizes that each passing day reduces the chances of uncovering the truth and injures the Petitioners’ rights. The impression is that official policy seeks to block Palestinian complainants and litigants and to circumvent the need to uncover the truth and ensure that justice is meted out to those responsible for criminal acts in the Territories. HaMoked notes that inspection of the investigative material is a primary public interest. Examining the manner in which the investigation on which the State Attorney’s Office's decision was based is vital in order to enhance supervision scrutiny and supervision over the work of the investigative and prosecuting authorities. Providing an opportunity to inspect the investigative material is necessary in order to strengthen democracy and the rule of law in the State of Israel.
HaMoked has submitted a civil suit on account of the incident; the case is pending before the court (CA 5610/05 Estate of the Late Mohammed Mahmud v State of Israel). The Petitioners were obliged to submit the suit without the investigative material, and without a full clarification of the circumstances surrounding the incident, in order to ensure that it was filed within the truncated period of limitations of two years.
