Wednesday, February 10, 2016, 18:09 On the morning of Wednesday, February 10, after several months of being under an administrative restraining order confining him to Kiryat Arba, a Shomron resident was detained on suspicion of violating the order several times by not sleeping at his permanent address in Kiryat Arba. The Shomron resident is married and has children. He asserts that he informed the Hevron Police of his whereabouts on the nights that he did not sleep in Kiryat Arba, as is stipulated in the order. For several months this practice of informing the police continued, however now the police claim that the order stipulates other conditions concerning informing them of where he sleeps, and decided to detain him and bring him to a deliberation on the morning of Thursday, February 11. Honenu Attorney Menasheh Yado filed an urgent appeal with the Jerusalem Magistrate Court in which he demanded that the detainee be brought to a deliberation on the same day since the interrogation was completed in the afternoon, the misdemeanor of which the detainee is suspected is not serious, there is a disagreement over the interpretation of the phrasing of the order and for several months the police has not bothered to claim that the defendant’s interpretation of the order is erroneous. “According to the order, the petitioner must sleep at night at his place of residence and if he changes his address he must inform the Hevron Police of the change,” wrote Yado. “For several months he has been informing the Hevron police by phone whenever he has slept at an address other than that which he reported when the order was issued. Today the petitioner was detained for interrogation and was told that telephoning the Hevron Police to inform them of his place of lodging, is not enough. This is the first time that the petitioner has been informed of the issue,” wrote Yado and noted that, “For months the police has kept silent and in effect authorized this practice. Then suddenly the police retroactively determined that the practice is forbidden.” “Whether or not the petitioner committed a misdemeanor is not the matter at hand. There are currently no grounds to detain the petitioner. At most the interpretation of the order by the police should be clarified to the petitioner,” wrote Yado.
top of page
bottom of page