In late 2009, a Palestinian from the West bank sought to perform the al-Umrah, the minor pilgrimage to Mecca, but when he reached the Allenby Bridge border crossing, the military prevented him from leaving, without showing cause. In April 2010, the military once more prevented his departure for Saudi Arabia. On May, 13, 2010, he arrived at the Ramallah District Coordination Office (DCO), to file an objection against the decision to prevent his exit, in compliance with the procedure for processing Palestinians' requests to travel abroad. Two months later, the objection was rejected, once more without cause or explanation. In October 2010, he arrived again at the DCO, to find out whether the travel ban against him was still valid. His application form was handed back to him, with a brief annotation: "security preclusion in effect".
Under military procedure, a second objection can only be filed after a period of nine months from the date of the initial objection. On November 25, 2010, with no other recourse available,
HaMoked petitioned the High Court of Justice (HCJ) to order the military to allow the man’s travel abroad. HaMoked argued that a sweeping "travel ban" of unlimited duration, that offers neither reason nor an option of a hearing is an excessive and disproportionate infringement on the petitioner's rights to a fair trial and to plead his cause. Furthermore, the preclusion infringes also on his basic rights to dignity, personal autonomy, and freedom of movement.
On February 10, 2011, a few days ahead of the scheduled hearing, the State Attorney's Office notified that "the petitioner's departure from the Area has been prevented due to his being a Hamas activist, with organizational and security-related affiliations with of members of the
Revolutionary Guards in Iran". In a phone conversation held the same day, it was further asserted that, contrary to HaMoked's assertion in the petition, "the petitioner served, in total, five years in prison". Surprised by the State Attorney’s claim, HaMoked contacted the Israel Prison Service, which confirmed the petitioner had never been imprisoned. At HaMoked's insistence, the State Attorney's Office reexamined the facts and revealed that an error had been made, and the information attributed to the petitioner, related, in fact, to someone else.
In a letter to HaMoked, dated February 13, 2011, the State Attorney's Office stated that "security officials have informed that they would not object to the petitioner's departure for Jordan" subject to his pledge to refrain from engaging in terrorism.
After the petitioner was allowed to travel abroad, HaMoked requested to delete the petition and
filed a motion for costs. The motion stressed that the travel ban had been lifted only because of the petition and that under the tests set forth by the courts, the petitioners were entitled to costs. HaMoked also argued that the error in the state's opinion, constituted a critical failure. The state’s position, as presented to the court, attributed severe actions to the petitioner without foundation. In this instance, the failure is particularly egregious, as confidential material which was not disclosed to the petitioners was presented in the proceeding. In such proceedings, the authority has a special obligation to examine the material thoroughly and meticulously, and ascertain it contains no errors and that the information provided the other party - figuratively deaf, mute and blind - and thereafter to the court, is correct.
On June 6, 2011,
the Supreme Court determined that the travel ban had been lifted as a result of the petition and the pre-hearing inquiries, and ordered the state to pay NIS 3,000 in legal fees. In this case, a casual remark led to the exposure of the error, which might have altered the course of petitioner's life. However, it remains uncertain how many other innocent Palestinians are banned from travel abroad by the military due to "security considerations" and under the cover of classified hearings, without their even being able to try to contest the decision.
