Center for the Defence of the Individual - Following a petition submitted by HaMoked, a resident of Bethlehem who was subject to a security preclusion was permitted to travel abroad: Defects in the implementation of the procedure for prior notice regarding a security related preclusion to traveling abroad only exacerbated the already grave infringement of his rights
العربية HE wheel chair icon
חזרה לעמוד הקודם
07.10.2009

Following a petition submitted by HaMoked, a resident of Bethlehem who was subject to a security preclusion was permitted to travel abroad: Defects in the implementation of the procedure for prior notice regarding a security related preclusion to traveling abroad only exacerbated the already grave infringement of his rights

On 24 September 2009, following HaMoked’s petition, security officials announced they had decided to permit the petitioner to travel abroad, subject to his written undertaking “not to have any contact with terrorist entities”. This decision came after a six-month-long ordeal during which he was prevented from realizing his right to freedom of movement as well as the rights that derive from it.

Last February, the petitioner arrived at the Allenby Bridge crossing in order to travel to Turkey via Jordan to visit relatives and conduct business, but the military refused to allow his exit and he was sent back from the Bridge without explanation. Two months later the petitioner tried his luck again, and arrived at the crossing hoping to travel to Jordan. This time, the petitioner was referred to a meeting with an Israel Security Agency (ISA) representative who was present at the Bridge, and who clarified that the petitioner would only be allowed to travel abroad on the condition that he collaborates with security forces. The petitioner refused, and even told the ISA agent that stipulating collaboration with the security forces as a condition for the realization of his rights was unlawful. This was not the first time the ISA contacted the petitioner – over the previous three years, the ISA had several “meetings” with him, during which he was placed under heavy and intense pressure to collaborate with Israeli security forces.

In order to be able to travel abroad, the petitioner wished to submit an objection against the preclusion. This objection is part of the prior notice procedure which was consolidated in the framework of a general petition submitted by the Association for Human Rights on behalf of HaMoked and Physicians for Human Rights – Israel concerning persons precluded from travelling abroad. The procedure establishes that a person who arrives directly at the Bridge and is informed there that he is precluded from travelling on grounds of security will be able to appeal to the District Coordination Office (DCO) and submit an objection to the preclusion.

On 30 April 2009, the petitioner arrived at the Israeli DCO in Bethlehem in order to submit an objection, in accordance with the procedure, but the soldier on duty told him that “the DCO has no such forms”. In response, HaMoked appealed to the complaints officer at the Civil Administration and criticized the soldiers’ ignorance, which causes unnecessary difficulties for applicants. On 9 June 2009 the petitioner returned to the DCO to submit an objection, but the DCO soldiers again refused to accept the objection for processing, on the claim that “the officer in charge is not currently present at the DCO”.  Only after HaMoked’s immediate intervention by telephone did the soldiers “agree” to process his objection. After the six weeks required by the procedure, there was no response from the DCO. Another six weeks passed and the objection remained pending, and no response was received. Therefore, HaMoked petitioned the High Court of Justice on 9 September 2009, requesting that the state permit the petitioner’s exit, without stipulating collaboration with the security forces. Two weeks after the submission of the petition, the preclusion was lifted subject to the petitioner’s written undertaking “to have no contact with terrorist entities.”

It must be noted that stipulating collaboration with Israeli security officials as a condition for permitting the petitioner’s exit contravenes international humanitarian law, which prohibits exerting pressure to induce cooperation with the occupying power. Furthermore, the fact that the preclusion was lifted only after HaMoked’s intervention and within a short time following the submission of the petition, raises serious questions regarding the security agencies’ policy of preventing Palestinians from travelling abroad, and doubts as to the initial justification for the security preclusion in the present case.