In the HCJ hearing: HaMoked holds that the home demolitions’ efficacy for deterrence is questionable, while the harm to human rights is all too clear; Justice Vogelman: these are “sensible words, but I am bound by the majority opinion even though my opinion is different. The obstacle is institutional” המוקד להגנת הפרט
عر HE wheel chair icon
כפתור חיפוש
תמונה ללא תיאור
14.07.2016
In the HCJ hearing: HaMoked holds that the home demolitions’ efficacy for deterrence is questionable, while the harm to human rights is all too clear; Justice Vogelman: these are “sensible words, but I am bound by the majority opinion even though my opinion is different. The obstacle is institutional”
In the HCJ hearing: HaMoked holds that the home demolitions’ efficacy for deterrence is questionable, while the harm to human rights is all too clear; Justice Vogelman: these are “sensible words, but I am bound by the majority opinion even though my opinion is different. The obstacle is institutional”
On July 14, the HCJ held a hearing on HaMoked’s petitions against the demolition orders issued for two homes in Hebron District, where lived two young men indicted for the perpetration of an attack against Israelis in Tel Aviv on June 8, 2016. One demolition order was issued for the upper floor of a two-story building in Yatta, where live the suspect’s parents and siblings; the other order was issued for two floors of a three-story house in Khirbet Raka’a: the upper floor where the suspect had lived, and the ground floor, where his parents and siblings live.

One of the central issues raised in the HCJ hearing was the reduction, at the very least, of the extent of the double demolition order issued for the home in Khirbet Raka’a. HaMoked reasserted that the state’s decision was unbalanced and emphasized that the family had not been involved in the son’s actions and was opposed to them.

HaMoked again addressed the fundamental flaw in the state’s position, which justifies using Regulation 119 on the need to deter potential attackers, despite the lack of any substantial empirical research to support its claim that home demolitions is deterring. HaMoked stressed that while the efficacy of the punitive demolition policy remained questionable, there was no doubt that it was causing immense violation of human rights. It was inconceivable that such a largescale severe infringement of basic rights was being practiced without the state presenting a compelling factual infrastructure supporting its policy. Thereupon, Justice Vogelman clarified that although President Naor’s recent decision prevented him from considering these principle issues, HaMoked’s claims were “sensible words, but I am bound by the majority’s opinion even though my opinion is different. The obstacle is institutional”.

As to the demolition order for the home in Yatta, HaMoked maintained that the family was uninvolved, and stressed that the state’s decision was unbalanced also given the fact that the young man had lived abroad in recent years and had returned to stay at his parents’ home for a limited short period only. HaMoked demanded to receive the relevant investigation materials underlying the state’s decision to demolish the family home.

In its decision, the court recommended that the state reduce the scope of the demolition order for the home in Khirbet Raka’a and refrain from demolishing the ground floor, where the family members live. The court instructed the state to submit its position as to this recommendation by July 17, 2016, at 17:00. It was also decided that the state was to provide HaMoked with the necessary investigation materials, on which HaMoked may submit its comments by the same date.
Print Print
Share
On July 14, the HCJ held a hearing on HaMoked’s petitions against the demolition orders issued for two homes in Hebron District, where lived two young men indicted for the perpetration of an attack against Israelis in Tel Aviv on June 8, 2016. One demolition order was issued for the upper floor of a two-story building in Yatta, where live the suspect’s parents and siblings; the other order was issued for two floors of a three-story house in Khirbet Raka’a: the upper floor where the suspect had lived, and the ground floor, where his parents and siblings live.

One of the central issues raised in the HCJ hearing was the reduction, at the very least, of the extent of the double demolition order issued for the home in Khirbet Raka’a. HaMoked reasserted that the state’s decision was unbalanced and emphasized that the family had not been involved in the son’s actions and was opposed to them.

HaMoked again addressed the fundamental flaw in the state’s position, which justifies using Regulation 119 on the need to deter potential attackers, despite the lack of any substantial empirical research to support its claim that home demolitions is deterring. HaMoked stressed that while the efficacy of the punitive demolition policy remained questionable, there was no doubt that it was causing immense violation of human rights. It was inconceivable that such a largescale severe infringement of basic rights was being practiced without the state presenting a compelling factual infrastructure supporting its policy. Thereupon, Justice Vogelman clarified that although President Naor’s recent decision prevented him from considering these principle issues, HaMoked’s claims were “sensible words, but I am bound by the majority’s opinion even though my opinion is different. The obstacle is institutional”.

As to the demolition order for the home in Yatta, HaMoked maintained that the family was uninvolved, and stressed that the state’s decision was unbalanced also given the fact that the young man had lived abroad in recent years and had returned to stay at his parents’ home for a limited short period only. HaMoked demanded to receive the relevant investigation materials underlying the state’s decision to demolish the family home.

In its decision, the court recommended that the state reduce the scope of the demolition order for the home in Khirbet Raka’a and refrain from demolishing the ground floor, where the family members live. The court instructed the state to submit its position as to this recommendation by July 17, 2016, at 17:00. It was also decided that the state was to provide HaMoked with the necessary investigation materials, on which HaMoked may submit its comments by the same date.
Related documents
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