The Killing of Ten-Year-Old Abir Aramin in the Village of ‘Anata: HCJ 5817/08 Aramin v. Attorney General (Judgment of July 10, 2011)

One day in January of 2007, Abir Aramin from ‘Anata, left school during recess to buy a sweet. She was killed, most likely by a rubber-coated metal bullet shot by a Border Police officer. She was only ten years old. Unfortunately, the stress in the previous sentence is on the phrase “most likely”, which we are forced to add for the sake of caution, and because the incident never made it to court.

On Blindness: HCJ 5373/08 Abu Libdeh v. Minister of Education (Judgment of February 6, 2011)

In 2011, the High Court of Justice (HCJ) issued a judgment in this case, which involves the right to education and equality in education for the children of East Jerusalem. It was issued after about a decade of deliberations. This commentary briefly addresses the results of this judgment, in the context of a previous case in which the HCJ intervened in order to uphold the right to education of the children of Poriya Illit, an Israeli community near Tiberias.

The Annexation of East Jerusalem to Israel: HCJ 256/01 Rabah v. Court for Local Affairs in Jerusalem (Judgment of January 16, 2002)

The petitioners decided to present the High Court of Justice (HCJ) with a very unpopular issue: the status of East Jerusalem under international law. There is almost no other issue around which the Israeli public rallies quite like “unified Jerusalem”. The Supreme Court is not a stranger in the land. It too prefers not be perceived as not exalting Jerusalem and celebrating the city-reunited-for-all-eternity. However, as detailed below, the Israeli statute that allowed for the “reunification of Jerusalem” and international law are at odds on this issue, to say the least. So what can be done?

Dispossession under the Supreme Court's Watchful Eye – On Beit Hadassah in Hebron: HCJ 175/81 Al Natsheh v. Minister of Defense (Judgment of May 19, 1981); HCJ 72/86 Zalum v. Military Commander (Judgment of March 9, 1987); HCJ 7007/03 Kawasmi v. Military

Dispossession can be done in many different ways. It is often no simple task to uncover these different methods, which are sometimes hidden between the lines of military orders or regulations and legal casuistry. Sometimes, however, dispossession is so obvious that there is no need to uncover it. On even rarer occasions, the entire process is “attended” by the court, which has the power to either prevent or enable it.

The Shelving of Complaints of Torture by the Israel Security Agency: HCJ 1265/11 Public Committee Against Torture v. Attorney General; HCJ 9061/11 Hutari v. Attorney General (Partial Judgment of August 6, 2012)

The subject of these petitions is the Attorney General’s procedure for handling complaints made by detainees regarding torture and ill-treatment during their interrogations by agents of the Israel Security Agency (ISA, formerly also known as the Shin Beit, or General Security Services, the GSS). About 600 complaints of this kind have been filed in the past decade[1] and all of them, to the very last one, were filed away without a single criminal investigation having been ordered.