العربية
HE
العربية
HE
On 28 September 2008, the High Court of Justice (HCJ) will hold a hearing in a petition filed by HaMoked and other organizations concerning the administrative procedure for prohibiting Palestinian West Bankers from traveling abroad. This is the second hearing in a petition originally filed against the many restrictions imposed on the large group of people blacklisted by the Israeli Security Agency (ISA). The HCJ restricted the petition to the procedure which existed before the second intifada broke out in September 2000 and allowed residents of the Territories wishing to travel abroad to inquire whether there was a "security impediment" to their exiting before actually arriving at the Allenby Bridge border crossing. With no such procedure in place, residents wishing to travel find out they are "blacklisted" for security reasons only upon arrival at the border, which results in much distress and unnecessary expenses.
On 21 February 2008, in response to the petition, the military presented the new procedure, a review of which reveals that it does not provide a solution for the sole problem it purports to resolve – inquiring regarding blacklisting ahead of time. Such an inquiry would allegedly be made possible following a protracted and complicated process: under the new procedure those wishing to find out whether they would be able to travel abroad must physically report to their local District Coordination Office (DCO) and file a reasoned application including documents – such as an airline ticket. That is, applicants must complete all travel arrangements before filing the application and without knowing whether they would ultimately be allowed to exit. Responses for such applications are to be given within no longer than six weeks and can be appealed. The procedure makes no reference to urgent requests. It seems that rather than addressing the substantive problem, the Military Legal Advisor to the West Bank is seeking to avoid tackling the issue.
The military began implementing the new procedure before the end of the thirty day period in which the Respondents could submit their response and before the Court deliberated on the issue. The office of the Legal Advisor to the West Bank also sent a letter to the organizations stating that, in light of the new procedure, it will cease processing appeals regarding travel prohibitions. The letter also stated that residents recently returned from the Allenby Bridge were required to submit their inquiries under the new procedure. This, despite the fact that the first stage of the procedure is designed for inquiring whether there is any impediment for traveling abroad in advance. Why must a person who has already been denied travel and returned from the border crossing begin this long process? Only the respondents can answer.
On 21 September 2008, the Petitioners filed an updating notice ahead of the hearing. The Petitioners re-emphasized that the demand they made in the petition is simple and basic – when a competent authority considers breaching a person's basic right and forbidding him from traveling abroad, it is required to notify the affected person in advance, provide him or her with the opportunity to argue against the decision and after such hearing is carried out, make an intelligent, reasoned final decision. This is what the Interior Ministry established in similar procedures pertaining to residents of East Jerusalem wishing to travel to Jordan through the Allenby Bridge (AP 750/05 HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual v. Minister of Interior). The Petitioners argue that the military is imposing a bureaucratic nightmare, which is in and of itself a violation of human rights, in order to maintain the possibility of appealing a "security blacklisting". In their notice, the Petitioners present the stories of a number of Palestinians whom HaMoked represented and who had to petition the HCJ in order to receive a permit to travel abroad.
