The HCJ opted not to rule in four HaMoked petitions against night curfews imposed by military order in ‘Isawiya
On February 13, 2020, HaMoked petitioned
the High Court of Justice (HCJ) on behalf of five Jerusalemite Palestinians living in the ‘Isawiya neighborhood, to cancel the restriction orders issued against them by the military home front commander, which prohibit them from leaving their homes from 20:00 in the evening until 06:00 in the morning. Additionally, HaMoked demanded the revocation of Regulations 108-110 of the Defense (Emergency) Regulations of 1945, pursuant to which the orders had been issued. Alternatively, HaMoked asked that should the court legitimize the authority to issue such orders under Regulation 110, it should cancel the procedures in which the orders had been issued for being unfair, unreasonable and disproportionate.
On February 26, 2020, the state notified HaMoked that it did not intend to extend the restriction order issued against one of the petitioners, a 19-year-old living with his parents. After the order expired on February 29, 2020, and was not renewed, HaMoked asked the court to delete the petition (HCJ 1198/20). It should be noted that in the framework of the petition, HaMoked complained about the prohibited attempt of the Israel Security Agency (ISA) to coerce the petitioner to collaborate with the Israeli security forces, in return for not extending the order. HaMoked also noted that after the petitioner had firmly rejected the offer, the ISA official told him the order would definitely be extended.
The four remaining petitions were heard on March 3, 2020. Following the Court’s recommendation, HaMoked requested that all four be deleted. In three of the petitions (HCJ 1200/20, HCJ 1201/20 and HCJ 1202/20) the court recommended the petitions be deleted after it concluded that arguments regarding the orders’ illegality had already been raised in the Magistrates Court and would be reviewed by it in the framework of the criminal proceedings against three of the petitioners. The three young men were indicted after they violated the orders as a protest against their unfairness, having been denied a reasonable opportunity to object to their issuance in advance.
The High Court Justices stated that the “indirect challenge” in the Magistrates Court precluded the “direct challenge” of the orders and the manner of their issuance before the HCJ (this despite the fact that the Magistrates Court has already rejected in one of the cases the principled claim against the authority to issue such orders).
The remaining petition (HCJ 1204/20), on behalf of a petitioner not indicted for violating the curfew, was also deleted after the court reviewed classified intelligence information in his case.