The HCJ approved yet another punitive demolition in the West Bank, despite factual questions regarding the cause of death: a three-story home of an innocent family will be demolished in its entirety

On March 13, 2023, the High Court of Justice (HCJ) unanimously approved the punitive demolition of a three-story building in Hajjah village, in the northern West Bank, where lived a man indicted for a stabbing attack committed on October 10, 2022. This is the only home of the man’s parents and four siblings (including a four-year-old girl and a six-month baby), who are not suspected of any wrongdoing.

In the judgment, the Court rejected HaMoked’s principled arguments that this constituted collective punishment of innocent people, prohibited under international law and also ineffective for deterrence in practice. Additionally, the Court rejected HaMoked’s arguments on the case’s merits, foremost regarding the substantive doubts surrounding a causal link between the stabbing and the deceased man’s sudden death some two weeks later, after his release from hospital. HaMoked provided an expert medical opinion that it was more likely the man’s death was caused by a pre-existing medical condition. The Court also rejected HaMoked’s argument that the family’s innocence and the fact that they criticized their son’s deed should have led the Court to limit the scope of the demolition to the indicted man’s room only, or at most, to the floor on which the family actually lived. In rejecting HaMoked’s argument that the floor under construction should be left intact, the Court held that this floor was intended to serve as the indicted man’s home once he got married, which constituted a “future residential tie” justifying the floor’s demolition.

On March 21, 2023, HaMoked submitted a request for a further hearing before an expanded panel. HaMoked focused its criticism of the judgment on the Court’s finding regarding a “future residential tie”. HaMoked clarified that this was a speculative and vague “residential tie”, given that the floor in question was yet under construction, was owned by the accused man’ innocent father, and not connected directly to the accused himself, nor concretely planned to serve as his home. Approval of the order in full based on the basis of this vague “residential tie” constituted an unacceptable expansion of the prevailing precedent, whereby use of Regulation 119 should be reserved to cases where clear, direct and current ties of residence exist between the housing unit and the alleged assailant. Thus, argued HaMoked, the judgment strayed from the Court’s consistent case law whereby use of Regulation 119 should cause minimum harm based on a rigorous review of the particulars of each case. 

In a decision of March 23, 2023, President Hayut rejected the motion and ruled that the judgment contained no new precedent justifying an additional hearing.