Tuesday, June 19, 14:39 D., age 16, was kept in remand an entire day due to unnecessary bureaucratic procedures. This morning (Tuesday) the court ordered D. unconditionally released. Yesterday during the early afternoon D., an approximately 16 year old resident of France, was detained in the north Jerusalem Beit Hanina neighborhood. According to the police the minor, against whom stands a restraining order banning him from entering East Jerusalem, violated the order by entering Beit Hanina. Despite D.’s claim that he was not aware that Beit Hanina is considered part of East Jerusalem and that he would refrain from entering the neighborhood in the future, the policemen decided to detain him. D. spent several hours in interrogation at the end of which the police decided to extend his remand until the following day (Tuesday), despite the possibility of bringing him to court the same day. Honenu hurried to file an urgent appeal on the unnecessary, according to them, remand extension. “It is not at all clear that a law has been violated, and even if it has, a one-time violation of a restraining order is not cause for remand. In any event the police should have completed the matter as quickly as possible. The ease with which minors are unnecessarily deprived of their freedom is intolerable,” pleaded Honenu and added that, “In any case the police did not oppose his release.” After a delay of several hours in filing the appeal with the court, due to the absence of judges and secretaries, the appeal was judged by Judge Avraham Rubin. The judge rejected the appeal because he did not find, according to him, cause to hold an urgent deliberation and left standing the decision made by the police. Honenu notes that the ruling is in complete opposition to the decision which the district court made in a similar case approximately six months ago, in which Judge Moshe Yo’ed HaCohen ruled that, “My standpoint on principle is that the opinion of the respondent (the police) that it is appropriate to delay the release of a man when the respondent does not object on principle to his release, but only for reasons of determining the conditions of release are the suspects required to appear before a judge, is baseless and in opposition to the principles of the laws concerning detainees and also the principles of the basic law regarding respect for man and his freedom. This opinion reflects, in effect, reasoning of administrative convenience and not of a fundamental nature… [The matter] of a man’s freedom and time spent in remand, even if only a few hours, is not a matter which may be treated lightly. The police in appropriate instances turn to the court even during the hours of the night and request decisions and warrants. In certain cases deliberations take place late at night… I order the respondent to act in accordance with my decision without delay.” Today, as stated, D. was brought to a deliberation at the Jerusalem Magistrate Court where he was represented by Honenu attorney David HaLevi. The police agreed to release D., on condition that the restraining order includes Beit Hanina, even though the neighborhood is not located in East Jerusalem. The judge released D. on condition of a restraining order banning him from Beit Hanina for a period of 30 days.
top of page
bottom of page