H.C. 3022/02, LAW, ACRI, and Adalah v. Commander of the Israeli Army in the West Bank, Yitzhak Eitan, and Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army, Shaul Mofaz.
Filed: 9 April 2002. Decision: 10 April 2002.
Petitioners: LAW, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) and Adalah.
Respondents: Commander of the Israeli Army in the West Bank, Yitzhak Eitan, and Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army, Shaul Mofaz.
Petitioners' Requests
- The army must immediately cease bombing civilian targets and must end indiscriminate bombing by helicopters and tanks in the Jenin refugee camp and other populated areas of the West Bank.
- The Supreme Court should hold an immediate hearing to discuss the substantial dangers currently facing the civilian population of the Jenin refugee camp and the West Bank.
- Ms. Raida Abu Ali stated on 8 April 2002 to Agence France Presse that she was inside a house in the Jenin refugee camp with her husband and brother when a missile hit their house and caused it to collapse on them.
- Mrs. H., a resident of the Jenin camp, stated on 8 April 2002 that she was inside a house with about 100 persons, including children and infants, whose houses were destroyed by shelling. She stated that they had been suffering from a lack of food, water and electricity for days. She stated that she saw young children who, due to great thirst, were forced to drink sewage water.
- Mr. H.A., a resident of the Jenin camp, stated on 8 April 2002 that houses in the camp's Abu Zini neighborhood were shelled by tanks and helicopters. Some of the houses went up in flames. About 100 residents fled towards Jenin municipality, waving white flags and screaming: "We are civilians, we are civilians!"
- The military's chosen tactics are unreasonable and disproportionate. The assault on civilian populations, infrastructure and property and against the lives and bodies of civilians was carried out with excessive force. There was no consideration given to alternative measures that would cause less damage.
- The Israeli army knew that the bombardment of civilian targets would cause heavy casualties among the civilian population, yet it did not give any forethought to the gross violation of human rights that would result from its operations.
-
The army has attacked numerous civilian targets around the West Bank, including houses, schools, roads, hospitals, churches, and mosques, as confirmed by media reports, eyewitness testimonies, and the army itself. Article 51(4) of the
First Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions prohibits indiscriminate attacks against civilian targets.
-
The army's actions are in violation of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2444, Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflicts (1968).
- The army's attacks on civilian targets violate Article 52(3) of the First Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions, which forbids attacking civilian objects when there is any doubt as to whether such objects are being used for military purposes.
-
The army's actions are in violation of the Hague Regulations (1907).
-
The army's actions constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Convention (IV), as defined by Article 147 of that document. Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions as war crimes.
- During fighting, a judicial review is not possible and the Court cannot give effective remedies concerning military operational methods of activity.
- There were civilian casualties and houses were demolished, but the army is doing everything possible, given that it is battling terrorists who are fighting from places where civilians are present, to minimize the harm to civilians.
- An early warning was given to the civilian population, ordering them to leave the area of fighting, but the population did not comply with the warning.
- The army refrained from using its full firepower, and instead fought from house to house, resulting in many Israeli casualties.
- Petitions dismissed.
- The petitioners are not qualified to determine what constitutes proportional measures.
- "It is impossible both on the merits of the case and institutionally to give the remedies requested by the petitioners."
- Based on the State's answer, it appears that the army is making efforts to prevent or minimize harm to civilians.