Search
  • dwaldman33

Military court criticized administrative orders

Sunday, July 24, 2016, 17:36 The President of the Military Court of Appeals, Judge Col. Netanel Benisho, leveled criticism at the Central Command with regard to the issuing of dozens of administrative restrictive orders to Jews over the past year. In mid-July 2016, Judge Col. Benisho ruled on the appeal filed by Honenu Attorney Menasheh Yado on an administrative restrictive order served by the GOC of the Central Command to a Jewish youth residing at Givat Baladim, a hilltop community adjacent to Kochav HaShahar. The youth was banned from entering Yehuda and Shomron, except for Kiryat Arba, and therefore was prevented from tending his flock which he keeps in the area of Kochav HaShahar. The duration of the order was extended after it expired, and in response an appeal was filed. This is only one case of over 50 administrative restrictive orders served by the GOC’s of the Central and Home Front Commands over the past year to Jewish youths. Judge Col. Benisho accepted the opinion of Yado that the Central Command systematically withheld the right to a hearing before serving the administrative orders, and called for care to be taken that this right is granted. The right to a hearing is granted by law and is supposed to be canceled only under unusual circumstances, when an individual poses an immediate danger. Honenu Attorney Menasheh Yado pleaded that the unusual had become the rule and the Central Command admitted that not one of the Jews who had been served with an administrative order over the past few years had received the opportunity of a hearing before the order was served, including in cases of extending an existing order. Judge Col. Benisho wrote in his decision that, “The commanding officer must punctilious about granting the defendant (detainee) the opportunity to plead his case, prior to serving him with restrictive orders, unless there is significant cause to grant this right only after the order has been served… Closely adhering to the above-mentioned guidelines is especially advisable when dealing with the extension of an order, as in this case. In this situation it is reasonable to assume that the suspicions raised by the representative of the commanding officer are weaker. Therefore it is expected that there must be even more diligence in correctly implementing the right to appeal.” Judge Col. Benisho also called on lawmakers to require mandatory appearance in court in every case of an administrative restrictive order, as is currently done in the case of an administrative detention order: A deliberation is held within 24 hours at a district court. The judge wrote that, “It would be proper for the lawmakers to institute a mandatory judicial review similar to the one existing concerning administrative detention orders.” Judge Col. Benisho ruled that after, “lengthy consideration” the order currently being appealed will not be canceled, due to confidential information presented by the ISA. However in order to extend the order again, the army and the ISA must present, “intelligence information which fundamentally alters the evaluation of dangerousness”, or there must be “a fundamental change in the security situation of the region”. Honenu Attorney Menasheh Yado : “This is the first step in limiting the discretion of a GOC in issuing orders. We have no doubt that many of the orders are disproportionate and will not stand the test of a legal trial. Concerning the procedure, the court reminded the GOC that also young residents of Yehuda and Shomron have legal rights to a court deliberation, and obligated the GOC to hold hearings prior to serving orders, something which the GOC, contrary to the law, systematically had not done during the past year.”

0 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All