Search
  • dwaldman33

Activists’ restrictive conditions canceled


Street sign in Tel Aviv; Photo credit: Yisrael Ze’ira


See here for a list of posts connected to the Ahuvia Sandak case. Sunday, January 31, 2021, 13:38 On Thursday, January 28, a deliberation was held at the Tel Aviv Magistrates Court on the release conditions of the four youths who hung signs in the city in protest of the death of Ahuvia Sandak, z”l. Judge Hadassa Asif accepted the opinion of the Honenu Attorneys who represented the youths and canceled the order distancing them from Tel Aviv for 15 days and also the order prohibiting them from contacting each other. See here and here for additional incidents involving protest signs in Bat Ayin and Yitzhar. Honenu Attorney Chai Haber, who represented the defendants, said during the deliberation that the case pertained to restricting freedom of movement, a fundamental right, and that there were no grounds for distancing the youths from Tel Aviv in specific. Judge Asif closed the deliberation and ruled “After I heard the claims from both sides and examined the investigative file, I decided to cancel the release conditions which were imposed on the suspects.” Judge Asif also accepted the claim by the attorney for the defense and ruled that there is no suspicion of a criminal offense. The Tel Aviv Police detained the youths, three minors and one 18-year-old, on January 19. They had changed the name of Tel Aviv street signs to “Ahuvia Sandak” in protest of the youth’s tragic death. The full text of the protest signs reads, “Ahuvia Sandak, youth, Hebrew pioneer, killed by policemen from the Central Unit of Yehuda and Shomron Police”. Honenu Attorney Amir Bracha provided legal counsel to the detainees at the Tel Aviv Police Station. At the conclusion of the deliberation, Honenu Attorney Chai Haber stated “The fight for the youths’ rights was not in vain. In the end, the court accepted our opinion and canceled the restrictive conditions. When there is no criminal offense, then the police do not have the authority to impose a distancing order or a prohibition to make contact, which from the start had no purpose. I am pleased that the court also saw that.”

0 views0 comments