|
Summary as of June 2005
On 22 May 2003, Al-Haq and 12 Hebron Residents submitted a petition to the Israeli High Court of Justice against the Israeli Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence and the Minister for Interior Security. The petition challenged the pattern of impunity granted to settlers who have committed violent acts against Palestinians and their property in the old city of Hebron, which are H2 areas under complete and effective Israeli control. The cases included in the petition cover physical attacks with water, eggs, rocks, knives, Molotov cocktails, live shooting and even shells; targeting the Palestinians themselves and their cars, homes, livestock and crops; resulting in crimes of burglary, attempted arson and arson, as well as other property destruction, attempted murder and murder. The murder victims were two children aged respectively two and fourteen.
Not only are these cases of violence ineffectively prevented, investigated and punished on a routinely basis, but sometimes the Israeli occupying forces intervene only against the Palestinians attempting to protect themselves or expel them from their homes in order to appease the attackers. Indeed, three of the petitioners also complained of being expelled from their homes and not allowed to return. These extreme conditions cause many Palestinians living close to settler houses to move away, leaving space for settlement expansion.
The Court granted the State Attorney's many requests for delays during the case. The State Attorney argued that the delays were necessary for the Israeli authorities to complete their investigations into the petitioners’ allegations. However, affidavits subsequently gathered by Al-Haq from individual petitioners suggested that investigations had hardly begun. Petitioners whom the State Attorney claims have been contacted as part of the investigations informed Al-Haq that no such communications had been exchanged. These petitioners were contacted only much later. One petitioner, far from being contacted by the respondents, had to request an interview with the Civil Administration Officer for the District of Hebron four times before this was eventually granted. The meeting did not address or resolve the issues raised in the petition.
On 12 October 2004, pursuant to pressure by the judges of the Israeli High Court of Justice on the State Attorney, the State agreed to the return of one of the petitioners, who had been previously expelled by settlers, to her home and to reconsider the return of another petitioner to his home. The State Attorney took it upon himself to send his final answer within 45 days. Furthermore, the State Attorney claimed that a committee had been set up to consider the lack of law enforcement upon settlers in Hebron. The Court noted these promises by the State Attorney and gave them the effect of a decision. On 19 December 2004, the State Attorney notified the Court that the second petitioner could also return to his home.
However, the reality on the ground remained in stark contrast to these announcements. On 13 January 2005, the Legal Advisor of the Israeli Army sent a letter to the State Prosecutor stating that one of the two petitioners must coordinate with the Israeli occupying forces every time she wishes to leave or come home, a decision that is neither just nor practicable. The second petitioner who was expelled from his home, and who was notified that he was to be allowed to return after the filing of the petition, was effectively prevented from renovating his home by Israeli settlers and thus could not return to it.
Regarding the ten other petitioners, the Court, in its decision of 12 October 2004, gave the respondents 60 days to complete their investigations and report back to the Court. Today, none of these cases is under consideration. Two cases were transferred from the Hebron police to the West Bank police headquarters and closed. The remaining eight case files were closed by the Hebron police on the grounds that the perpetrators have allegedly not been found, and that some petitioners had not filed official complaints with the Israeli police.
In light of this situation the petitioners approached the Court once again and demanded another session to discuss the lack of true implementation of the Court decisions by the State. The Court issued a written decision on 30 May 2005 which denied the petition on the grounds that it was too general and came too early, as the committee to discuss the lack of law enforcement in Hebron had not completed its work. The decision specifically discussed two of the respondents who complain of being denied access to their homes, finding that the current arrangements by the Israeli Authorities did not prevent the petitioners from returning home. The Court also held that if the two petitioners nevertheless encounter problems, they could petition the Court again.
The current situation of the two petitioners shows that they are indeed encountering problems. One has not been allowed to return home, in spite of having called the Israeli Civil Administration several times in vain. The petitioner has been given offers to sell her house but has refused to do so. The other petitioner has been given the keys of the house to allow workers to fix it, which they are currently doing, albeit under severe harassment from settlers. For the time being the house, destroyed by settlers, is not suitable for habitation.
|
