Center for the Defence of the Individual - HaMoked to the HCJ: State must produce evidence substantiating the guilt of suspects whose family homes are slated for demolition
العربية HE wheel chair icon
חזרה לעמוד הקודם
28.10.2015

HaMoked to the HCJ: State must produce evidence substantiating the guilt of suspects whose family homes are slated for demolition

On October 22, 2015, HaMoked filed nine High Court petitions seeking the court to order the cancellation of demolition orders issued against six homes. These are the homes of relatives of Palestinians who have committed attacks or are suspected of having done so. That same day, the court granted interim orders preventing the seizure or demolition of the homes pending any other decision. The hearing was scheduled for 9:00 A.M. on October 29, 2015.

On October 23, 2015, a day after the petitions were filed, HaMoked filed a motion to receive evidentiary material in six of the petitions, arguing that “the demolition orders in the above petitions were issued before the alleged perpetrators were charged and before the petitioners were given the opportunity to review the evidence”. HaMoked sought to ascertain, with respect to each of the suspects “the motive, motivation, criminal intent, degree of involvement, actual role played in the commission of the offense, what happened to each of the persons involved and where they are today, what their status is and what the authorities are planning to do with them” (emphasis in original ).

On October 27, 2015, when the state submitted its response to the petitions, the court gave its decision, according to which “following a review, and if still necessary, the Petitioners may contact the state once more”. The state argued in its response that it has “open evidence” sufficient for substantiating the decision to take action to demolish the suspects’ homes, and that it also had “classified material that could be presented ex parte”. HaMoked, therefore, asked the court to order the state to produce the material it had and allow HaMoked sufficient time to study it.

The court issued a decision on the same day that the state “shall address Petitioners’ claim that the relevant evidence would be enclosed with the Respondents’ submission” at the hearing.

Related documents

No documents to show

Related topics