The Appeal (Hebrew)
On 29 November 2007, the Supreme Court of Israel heard an appeal filed by Adalah on 26 November 2007 on behalf of Attorney Ahmed Khatib. The appeal was filed against a decision delivered by the Tel Aviv District Court on 14 November 2007 to bar Attorney Khatib from visiting all political prisoners incarcerated in Israeli prisons until 2 December 2007, i.e. for a period of 19 days. The General Security Services (GSS) presented secret evidence at a closed session before Supreme Court justices today after asking Adalah’s lawyers and Attorney Khatib to leave the courtroom. The court then advised the appellants to withdraw the appeal, given the short time before the expiry of the ban and because the state will not file another request for an extension of the ban unless the GSS instructs it to do so again. Attorney Khatib agreed to withdraw the appeal.
In the appeal, Adalah Attorney Fatmeh El-‘Ajou argued that the district court’s decision harms Attorney Khatib’s source of livelihood, the rights of clients incarcerated in Israeli prisons and detention centers, and the legal profession.
Attorney Khatib began to represent Palestinian political prisoners held in Israeli prisons and detention centers two years ago. On 6 November 2007, he went to the Ayalon Prison to visit eight prisoners, having prearranged the visit with the prison authorities. At the beginning of his meeting with the second prisoner, one of the prison guards entered the room and informed Attorney Khatib that the visit was over as the guard had received an order to remove him from the prison. The Israel Prison Service (IPS) informed Attorney Khatib via the Attorney General that, “Based on information in the possession of the head of the Israel Prison Service, there is a clear fear that your meeting with security prisoners will allow the commission of a crime that will endanger prison security or lead to the disruption or obstruction of the prison regime and management.” The ban on Attorney Khatib was repeatedly extended until the state asked the Tel Aviv District Court to extend the ban for an additional period of 21 days.
In its decision, the district court ruled that, “The concentrated meetings held with a large group of prisoners in and of itself raises a question mark over the nature of the professional service that the attorney provides to his prisoner clients.”
Attorney El’Ajou argued that the district court’s decision unjustifiably restricts the freedom of attorneys to carry out their work and places constraints on the legal services to which their clients are entitled. Adalah stressed that that the decision violates the attorney’s right to freedom of occupation by preventing him from providing legal representation to his clients. It also damages his reputation both professionally and personally.
The appellants also emphasized that it is the right of prisoners and detainees to meet with their lawyers, and that this right is a basic safeguard for their other constitutional rights. Thus these meetings are doubly important in the case of Palestinian political prisoners who are incarcerated in Israeli jails instead of in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in contravention of international humanitarian law. Their detention in Israel clearly restricts the ability of the prisoners’ families and members of Palestinian human rights organizations to visit them and find out about their conditions of confinement and the extent to which they are able to exercise their rights according to international law.
Palestinian political prisoners are banned from using a telephone and are subject to many restrictions regarding other means of communication, such as writing letters. “These manifold restrictions that are imposed on the communication of political prisoners with the outside world greatly increase the importance of their meetings with their lawyers. The lawyer is the sole means through which their conditions of confinement can come to light, and through which legal steps can be taken in order to realize their rights … The prevention of lawyers from entering prisons puts political prisoners in a situation of isolation that prevents them from communicating with the outside world, which increases the likelihood of their being exposed to torture and humiliating treatment,” argued Attorney El-‘Ajou.
The appellants further contended that the district court had made the false assumption that the lives of the prisoners who are Attorney Khatib’s clients are put on hold with their imprisonment. “It is extremely reasonable that a prisoner would require legal consultation or legal representation in cases and issues that do not cease during his or her time in prison, such as advice regarding contracts, property or family issues,” argued Adalah.
Furthermore, taking away freedoms and preventing an attorney from meeting his or her clients must be based on clear and sound evidence, and therefore the Supreme Court must allow Attorney Khatib to hold meetings with his clients without undue restrictions.