On 26 April 2006, the Supreme Court of Israel ordered the Israel Prison Service (IPS) to reexamine new directives within 45 days concerning children’s visits with their incarcerated parents. Under the new directives, political prisoners must submit written requests in advance to the IPS in order to gain permission to have physical contact with their children during visits. The Court also instructed the IPS to investigate the possibility of restricting the right of political prisoners to enjoy physical contact with their children only in exceptional cases, and only for security-related reasons.

Israeli law distinguishes between political prisoners, the vast majority of whom are Palestinian citizens of Israel or Palestinians from the Occupied Territories, classified as “security prisoners,” and ordinary criminal prisoners. However, according to the law, any prisoner and detainee (both criminal and security) is entitled to receive family visits.

The Supreme Court issued these orders at a hearing on a petition submitted by Adalah Attorney Abeer Baker in Adalah’s own name and on behalf of ten children of “security” prisoners and the Prisoner Association against the IPS. The petition, filed on 16 August 2004, seeks the cancellation of a 2002 decision of the IPS to deny physical contact between political prisoners and their children during visits.

In the petition, Adalah argued that the IPS’s decision of 2002 is illegal as it violates the constitutional rights of the children to dignity and to a family life, and the derived right to receive love from their parents. The decision also contradicts the principle of acting in the best interest of the child. Further, the decision discriminates between the children of political prisoners and those of criminal prisoners, who continue to enjoy the right of physical contact with their children, which is tantamount to illegal, arbitrary and collective punishment, Adalah argued.

On 2 March 2005, the Supreme Court held a preliminary hearing on the petition, during which it ordered the IPS to clarify and explain the criteria according to which it allows “security prisoners” to have physical contact with their children under the age of ten. The Court demanded that the IPS provide details of and reasons for the specific reasons for allowing physical contact only in special cases. Additionally, the Court requested a detailed explanation from the IPS of the procedures for prisoners to submit requests for physical contact, and the details required from prisoners for a decision to be made.

In response to the Supreme Court’s order, the IPS announced that it had issued new directives allowing meetings between a prisoner and his or her children, without a glass wall separating them, provided that: a request is submitted by the prisoner; the prisoner’s behavior is good; and there is no security-related reason for withholding such permission. The IPS also added the condition that the child must be less than six years of age.

Attorney Baker objected to the new directives and associated conditions, which she argued render, in practical terms, the rights of prisoners and their children meaningless. Regarding the submission of a written request by the prisoner, Adalah stated that there can be no obligation on the part of prisoners to file a request for something to which they and their children are legally entitled.

Adalah further contended that the conditioning physical contact with children on a prisoner’s behavior is unacceptable as it is unreasonable to punish a child for the alleged “bad behavior” of his or her incarcerated parent. Adalah argued that lowering the age of the children who are permitted hug their incarcerated parents to six years was done arbitrarily and without justification; preventing a ten year-old child from doing the same is inexplicable.

H.C. 7585/04, Hakeem Kana'ni, et. al. v. The Israel Prison Service (case pending)