On 5 September 2006, Adalah filed a petition to the Supreme Court of Israel demanding the issuance of an injunction canceling Article 4(a) of the Prison Service Order #04/34/00. This Order is used by the Israel Prison Service (IPS) to restrict an attorney’s access to a detainee, sometimes for many consecutive days, on the pretext that the meeting was not pre-arranged with the IPS. Significantly, the text of the aforementioned order does not grant the IPS the authority to prevent a meeting between an attorney and a detainee; rather, it simply stipulates that an attorney who wishes to visit a detainee must inform the prison authorities of the visit in advance.

The petitioners further demanded the annulment of the IPS’s policy of arbitrarily closing prisons to attorneys who want to visit Palestinian political prisoners (classified in Israel law as “security” prisoners) for several days, without any legal basis.

In general, meetings with attorneys are restricted only in the cases of Palestinian political prisoners and detainees. Thus, for example, three members of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), Mohammad Abu Ter, Ahmad Attoun and Khaled Abu Arafa, who were arrested on 29 June 2006, were prevented from meeting their attorneys for over two months, on the pretext that the meetings were not pre-arranged with the IPS. In 3 July 2006, Adalah filed a petition to the Supreme Court on behalf of the detained PLC members’ lawyers, Attorneys Fadi Qawasmi and Fida Qawar. In response to the petition, the IPS announced before the Court that it would allow all attorneys to enter prisons to visit Palestinian prisoners, including members of the PLC. Adalah, however, requested that the Court rule on the IPS’s general policy of restricting attorneys’ access to Israeli prisons. In response, the Court asked that the petition be amended to focus on the principle issue.

Hence, Adalah Attorney Abeer Baker filed the new petition on behalf of Attorneys Fadi Qawasmi and Fida Qawar. The petition includes many examples of attorneys not being permitted to meet their detained clients without any clear reason or legal justification. Adalah argued that the way in which the IPS interprets its authority to limit meetings between an attorney and a detainee contradicts the Criminal Procedures Law (Power of Enforcement – Detainees) 1996, which determines the circumstances in which such meetings can be restricted.

The petitioners further contended that the language of Article 4(a) of the Prison Service Order #04/34/00 is vague, which has allowed the IPS to interpret it in an arbitrary manner. This in turns breaches the rule of law and the legal duty to set out clear and transparent criteria. Therefore, the petitioners argued that the Order should be cancelled or, alternatively, that the Court compel the IPS to allow an attorney merely to inform the IPS of his visit, and not to obtain a permit in advance.

In addition, Adalah argued that the prevention of meetings between detainees and attorneys increases the danger that harm will be caused to detainees’ bodily integrity health and dignity, and that their rights to legal counsel and to access to the courts will be violated. A hearing has been scheduled before the Supreme Court on 25 October 2006.

H.C. 5613/06, Attorney Fadi Qawasmi, et. al. v. The Israel Prison Service (case pending)