On March 28, HaMoked
petitioned the HCJ against a punitive demolition order issued by the military for the family home of a young man from Hajjah, Qalqiliya District, who perpetrated the March 9, 2016 attack in Jaffa. The apartment is located in the middle story of a three-story building and is home to the young man’s parents and four siblings. The petition was filed on behalf of the family and the neighbors.
HaMoked argued that the decision to demolish the family home was unreasonable and disproportionate as the young man did not live in his parents’ home and the family had no involvement or prior knowledge of the act. HaMoked added that the young man’s relationship with his family was strained and rife with disputes because of the way he lived his life, including drug use and suicide attempts. Moreover, HaMoked demanded to receive the investigation file and the details surrounding the man’s death, given the fact that he was executed after no longer posing a threat to anyone. In light of the military’s announcement, upon dismissal of the
objection, that the demolition would proceed with the internal walls of the apartment manually destroyed and the external walls demolished using a controlled explosion, HaMoked cautioned that severe damage might be caused to the remaining parts of the building as a result of the so-called controlled explosion.
On April 6, 2016, the court
heard the petition as if an order nisi had been issued, compelling the state to provide an explanation for its decision. When asked why it should not consider an alternative to demolitions, such as sealing using a foaming material, in order to prevent damage to neighboring apartments, the state replied that “In terms of the deterrent use, we prefer the element of demolition and explosion”. Justice Zylbertal responded: “I see no difference in deterrence. I do see a huge difference in the damage”. The justices also reviewed classified material submitted by the state which was alleged to support its contention that the young man did live in his parents’ home. The state was asked to explore the possibility of disclosing the material to allow the petitioners to respond. In its decision, the court instructed the state to submit a supplementary notice, including reference to the issue of an alternative to explosives, by April 11, 2016, allowing the petitioners to respond to said notice by April 19, 2016.
