Center for the Defence of the Individual - Tomorrow, 9 September 2009, the HCJ will hold a hearing in the petition filed by HaMoked and other organizations regarding the restrictions Israel imposes on travel abroad by people branded “precluded by the ISA”: The new prior inquiry procedure presented by the military in the framework of the petition has made matters worse for residents of the Territories wishing to travel abroad
العربية HE wheel chair icon
חזרה לעמוד הקודם
08.09.2009

Tomorrow, 9 September 2009, the HCJ will hold a hearing in the petition filed by HaMoked and other organizations regarding the restrictions Israel imposes on travel abroad by people branded “precluded by the ISA”: The new prior inquiry procedure presented by the military in the framework of the petition has made matters worse for residents of the Territories wishing to travel abroad

On 9 September 2009, the HCJ will once again hold a hearing in the petition filed by HaMoked and other organizations regarding the many restrictions imposed on the population of people “precluded by the ISA”. The HCJ has limited the scope of the petition to the procedure which was in effect prior to the outbreak of the second intifada in September 2000, under which a resident of the Territories wishing to travel abroad was able to inquire ahead of time whether there was a “security preclusion” to his traveling abroad before he arrived at the Allenby Bridge.

The hearing will focus on the new procedure the army presented and has begun implementing for prior inquiry regarding a security preclusion to travel abroad from the West Bank and the methods of appealing the preclusion. In the absence of a mechanism for prior inquiry, a resident wishing to travel abroad discovers he is precluded from traveling “for security reasons” only when he arrives at the border with his luggage, a situation which causes great distress and unnecessary expenses. In a hearing held on 1 August 2007, the Court ordered the State to present a procedure which provides a solution to the problem.

Not only did the procedure the military began implementing not solve the problem, but rather it has added a bureaucratic burden on individuals seeking to travel abroad: the procedure requires the applicant to arrive at the DCO in person in order to file the preliminary application designed to clarify whether or not there is a security preclusion to his traveling. If there is no preclusion on record on the DCO computer, the applicant will be informed immediately. If, for any reason, a preclusion is on record, it will be reviewed by the relevant officials and notification will be provided to the applicant within six weeks. If, following the review, the preclusion remains firm and valid the applicant may once again go to the DCO to file an objection. The response to the objection will be provided within a further six weeks. This means that if a person is precluded, at least three whole months will go by from the time he first goes to the DCO until he is able to exercise his right to travel abroad.

According to the new procedure, individuals who arrive at the Allenby Bridge and find out there that they are precluded from exiting are required to go to the DCO to file an objection against the preclusion and wait for a response. Thus, the procedure has made matters worse for persons branded precluded from traveling abroad: prior to the procedure, they could contact the office of the legal advisor for the West Bank in writing, via representatives, in order to appeal the preclusion. In many cases (70% between 2003 and 2007), such an appeal has lead to the preclusion being removed in a short time. The new procedure blocks this course of action. In fact, the new procedure has taken human rights organizations and attorneys out of the picture.

The hearing which will be held tomorrow is the third in the organizations’ petition. In the previous hearing, the Court ordered the State to submit an updating notice within 90 days in order to examine the implementation of the new procedure. The Court will review the renewed request for an interim order freezing the situation and restoring the course of action available prior to the entry into force of the procedure. The review of the petition on its merits will also continue.