HCJ once again upholds punitive demolition of two West Bank homes: The justices again adopt the military’s position that demolitions are a deterrent measure, abut note that efforts should be made to reduce the damage, including compensating neighbors whose property is damaged המוקד להגנת הפרט
عر HE wheel chair icon
כפתור חיפוש
תמונה ללא תיאור
15.02.2016
HCJ once again upholds punitive demolition of two West Bank homes: The justices again adopt the military’s position that demolitions are a deterrent measure, abut note that efforts should be made to reduce the damage, including compensating neighbors whose property is damaged
HCJ once again upholds punitive demolition of two West Bank homes: The justices again adopt the military’s position that demolitions are a deterrent measure, abut note that efforts should be made to reduce the damage, including compensating neighbors whose property is damaged
On February 14, 2015, the HCJ dismissed two petitions filed by HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual against punitive house demolition orders issued for two Hebron District homes. One, located in Dura, was the home of the suspected November 19, 2015 Tel Aviv attacker, which he shared with his wife and five children. The other, in Deir Samit, was the home of the young man suspected of committing an attack on the same day in Gush Etzion. He lived with his parents and siblings.


The court unanimously dismissed the petitions, holding that the demolition should not be scaled back. The court reaffirmed the state’s position in ruling that “The measure of demolishing or sealing homes is carried out for the purpose of deterrence only, rather than as a punitive measure, even if it cannot be denied that the measure does result in injuries to the property of family members who may not be involved in terrorism.” The court also repeated the finding that general issues concerning the legality of Regulation 119, pursuant to which the military commander orders house demolitions, need not be revisited “as no change of circumstances justifying same has occurred.” The justices did, however, note: “none of us adjudicate these cases with any ease.”


Addressing HaMoked’s complaint that soldiers barged into the Deir Samit home in the middle of the night to make “preparations” for the demolition even before the results of the objection filed against the demolition order came through, the justices said this had been unnecessary and that “the Respondents assure the court that this conduct will not be repeated, and we have taken not of same”. On the possible damage to neighboring apartments, the justices said “special care is required, and, in any event, if damage is caused, the option of compensation is not off the table.”
Print Print
Share
On February 14, 2015, the HCJ dismissed two petitions filed by HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual against punitive house demolition orders issued for two Hebron District homes. One, located in Dura, was the home of the suspected November 19, 2015 Tel Aviv attacker, which he shared with his wife and five children. The other, in Deir Samit, was the home of the young man suspected of committing an attack on the same day in Gush Etzion. He lived with his parents and siblings.


The court unanimously dismissed the petitions, holding that the demolition should not be scaled back. The court reaffirmed the state’s position in ruling that “The measure of demolishing or sealing homes is carried out for the purpose of deterrence only, rather than as a punitive measure, even if it cannot be denied that the measure does result in injuries to the property of family members who may not be involved in terrorism.” The court also repeated the finding that general issues concerning the legality of Regulation 119, pursuant to which the military commander orders house demolitions, need not be revisited “as no change of circumstances justifying same has occurred.” The justices did, however, note: “none of us adjudicate these cases with any ease.”


Addressing HaMoked’s complaint that soldiers barged into the Deir Samit home in the middle of the night to make “preparations” for the demolition even before the results of the objection filed against the demolition order came through, the justices said this had been unnecessary and that “the Respondents assure the court that this conduct will not be repeated, and we have taken not of same”. On the possible damage to neighboring apartments, the justices said “special care is required, and, in any event, if damage is caused, the option of compensation is not off the table.”
משפט ישראלי - מסמכים אחרים


משפט ישראלי - כתבי בי דין


משפט ישראלי - חקיקה


משפט ישראלי - פסיקה


משפט בינלאומי וזר - מסמכים אחרים


משפט בינלאומי וזר - אמנות וחקיקה


משפט בינלאומי וזר - פסיקה


ספרות - עדכונים


ספרות - פסיקה במבחן


ספרות - ספרים


ספרות - מאמרים


ספרות - שונות


ספרות - דוחות