On February 16, 2015, in its response to HaMoked’s objection against the decision to expel a resident of East Jerusalem from his city for a period of six months, the
military informed it had decided to alter the scope of the removal order, and to
allow the man to be present at his home in East Jerusalem or on a specific road, marked in a map attached to the response, leading to a checkpoint through which the man might enter and leave the city. The military explained that the decision to limit the scope of the order was made in consideration of the grave medical condition of the man’s son. The military dismissed the rest of HaMoked’s arguments against the order. For the man, this was a significant improvement compared with the original version of the order. However, a state of affairs where the military restricts a man – without a trial – to staying only at his home and on a road leading out of the city is both unacceptable and outrageous.
On March 11, 2015,
HaMoked petitioned the High Court of Justice (HCJ) to instruct the military to revoke the revised order. HaMoked asserted that despite the reduction of scope, the order still severely infringed the man’s rights to freedom of movement and a livelihood and prevented him from accompanying his son to medical treatments. HaMoked also argued that the man’s right to be heard had not been upheld, given that the hearing had taken place only after the order entered into effect; that this was a vague order that was transferred without the evidence or information underlying it; and further, that the duration and scope of the order were disproportionate. In fairness, HaMoked noted that after the original order was issued, the man was caught in Jerusalem in violation of the order while visiting his ill child.
In its
response to the petition, submitted March 29, 2015, the state claimed that the decision to issue the order was proportionate, and so were its scope and duration. The state also argued that there was a security justification to the fact that the military hearing had been held only after the order became effective, and that the limited evidence disclosed to the man was sufficient.
