The Jerusalem Magistrate Court ruled a NIS 75,000 compensation for three brothers represented by HaMoked for beating and abuse by Border Police officers in Hebron: In the incident, the officers brutally beat the three brothers – minors at the time – and pushed away their mother who came to their aid המוקד להגנת הפרט
عر HE wheel chair icon
כפתור חיפוש
תמונה ללא תיאור
23.11.2008
The Jerusalem Magistrate Court ruled a NIS 75,000 compensation for three brothers represented by HaMoked for beating and abuse by Border Police officers in Hebron: In the incident, the officers brutally beat the three brothers – minors at the time – and pushed away their mother who came to their aid
The Jerusalem Magistrate Court ruled a NIS 75,000 compensation for three brothers represented by HaMoked for beating and abuse by Border Police officers in Hebron: In the incident, the officers brutally beat the three brothers – minors at the time – and pushed away their mother who came to their aid

The tort claim was filed regarding an incident which took place in 1998 near the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron. The Plaintiffs, three brothers, aged 10, 13 and 14 were playing a ball game around the Tomb of the Patriarchs. The ball rolled in the direction of the Border Police post which is located in the area. One of the children went to retrieve it, but the officers confiscated that ball and prevented him from returning to his friends. When the three brothers – the Plaintiffs – went to the post to ask the other child be released, the officers beat them in a manner requiring medical treatment. The officers pushed away the siblings' mother who had been called over to rescue her children from them. Following the incident, the mother filed a complaint with the police and the children identified the suspected officers. 

An investigation was launched and an indictment against the officers was served. The indictment was subsequently withdrawn due to the alleged failure of the attempts to locate the Palestinian witnesses and bring them to Court to testify. In practice, the witnesses were located and indeed made it to the Court to testify, but found out, upon their arrival, that the indictment had been cancelled. The State Attorney's office refused to re-indict. 

In 2004, HaMoked filed a tort claim against the officers and the State as bearing vicarious responsibility for their actions. The State was also accused of negligence regarding the handling of the original indictment and the failure to re-indict. The State, on its part, served the brothers' parents with a notice that they were responsible for the damage incurred by their children inasmuch as they neglected their responsibility to remove them from the area where the Border Police officers' post was located.  

The judgment, delivered on 3 November 2008, rejects the Border Police officers' versions and rules that they are inconsistent and constitute an attempt to present the incident in a manner justifying their conduct. The Court did not find the State responsible for the actions of the officers. According to the Court, the indictment served against the officers indicates that the State does not approve of their actions. The Court also rejects the claims regarding State negligence. On this matter the Court ruled that the considerations behind the State Attorney's conduct regarding the indictment were reasonable and acceptable. The Court does, however, criticize the State's notice regarding parental negligence and rejects it outright. The Court accepted the Plaintiffs' version of the events and ordered the officers pay compensation to the sum of NIS 75,000 for pain and suffering, injury to the Plaintiffs' dignity and violation of their right to freedom from pain and suffering. 

To view the judgment dated 3 November 2008 (Hebrew)

To view the State's Statement of Defense dated 16 February 2005 (Hebrew)

To view the officers' Statement of Defense dated 15 February 2005 (Hebrew)

To view the Claim dated 19 May 2004 (Hebrew)

Print Print
Share

The tort claim was filed regarding an incident which took place in 1998 near the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron. The Plaintiffs, three brothers, aged 10, 13 and 14 were playing a ball game around the Tomb of the Patriarchs. The ball rolled in the direction of the Border Police post which is located in the area. One of the children went to retrieve it, but the officers confiscated that ball and prevented him from returning to his friends. When the three brothers – the Plaintiffs – went to the post to ask the other child be released, the officers beat them in a manner requiring medical treatment. The officers pushed away the siblings' mother who had been called over to rescue her children from them. Following the incident, the mother filed a complaint with the police and the children identified the suspected officers. 

An investigation was launched and an indictment against the officers was served. The indictment was subsequently withdrawn due to the alleged failure of the attempts to locate the Palestinian witnesses and bring them to Court to testify. In practice, the witnesses were located and indeed made it to the Court to testify, but found out, upon their arrival, that the indictment had been cancelled. The State Attorney's office refused to re-indict. 

In 2004, HaMoked filed a tort claim against the officers and the State as bearing vicarious responsibility for their actions. The State was also accused of negligence regarding the handling of the original indictment and the failure to re-indict. The State, on its part, served the brothers' parents with a notice that they were responsible for the damage incurred by their children inasmuch as they neglected their responsibility to remove them from the area where the Border Police officers' post was located.  

The judgment, delivered on 3 November 2008, rejects the Border Police officers' versions and rules that they are inconsistent and constitute an attempt to present the incident in a manner justifying their conduct. The Court did not find the State responsible for the actions of the officers. According to the Court, the indictment served against the officers indicates that the State does not approve of their actions. The Court also rejects the claims regarding State negligence. On this matter the Court ruled that the considerations behind the State Attorney's conduct regarding the indictment were reasonable and acceptable. The Court does, however, criticize the State's notice regarding parental negligence and rejects it outright. The Court accepted the Plaintiffs' version of the events and ordered the officers pay compensation to the sum of NIS 75,000 for pain and suffering, injury to the Plaintiffs' dignity and violation of their right to freedom from pain and suffering. 

To view the judgment dated 3 November 2008 (Hebrew)

To view the State's Statement of Defense dated 16 February 2005 (Hebrew)

To view the officers' Statement of Defense dated 15 February 2005 (Hebrew)

To view the Claim dated 19 May 2004 (Hebrew)

Related documents
משפט ישראלי - מסמכים אחרים


משפט ישראלי - כתבי בי דין


משפט ישראלי - חקיקה


משפט ישראלי - פסיקה


משפט בינלאומי וזר - מסמכים אחרים


משפט בינלאומי וזר - אמנות וחקיקה


משפט בינלאומי וזר - פסיקה


ספרות - עדכונים


ספרות - פסיקה במבחן


ספרות - ספרים


ספרות - מאמרים


ספרות - שונות


ספרות - דוחות