The HCJ charged the State with the petitioner's expenses in the sum of 3000 NIS, in HaMoked's petition regarding the intolerable delay in deciding whether to prosecute those involved in an unlawful shooting which led to the death of a Palestinian minor: The Court ruled that the filing of the petition was justified given the State Attorney's Office's disregard for the petitioners' requests

On 27 May 2003, a Palestinian minor and resident of Tulkarem 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 and the minor was injured in his torso and collapsed. When a local pharmacist tried to provide first aid to the minor, Border Police officers prevented him from doing so. The minor was evacuated to hospital in Tulkarem; shortly after his 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 launched in July 2004 – over a year after the incident – following HaMoked's requests. 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 18 May 2008, HaMoked submitted a petition regarding these intolerable delays to the Court. 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."  

HaMoked submitted a civil suit on account of the incident and 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.

On 4 January 2009, the Court charged the respondent with the petitioners' expenses in the sum of 3000 NIS. The Registrar ruled that the petitioners were objectively justified in filing the petition, as their many appeals to the State Attorney's Office, over a protracted period of time, were not answered. However, the Registrar ruled that the decision made by the State Attorney's Office was not related to the filing of the petition, and therefore the petitioners' request for expenses was only partially granted.