Key Israeli Supreme Court Cases: Human Rights

Key Israeli Supreme Court Cases on Human Rights

Beit Sourik Village Council vs. Government of Israel (2004) – Human Rights in Emergency

Background: The planned route of the security fence caused damage to Palestinian villages.

Results: The Court ruled that the state had to change the route in some areas. However, it noted that the fence’s existence was justified for security needs.

Meaning:

  • Introduction of The Test of Proportionality:
    • The means must be rationally related to the objective.
    • The means must injure the individual to the least extent possible.
    • The damage caused by the means used must be proportional to the benefit gained.

“We are aware that in the short term, this judgment will not make the state’s struggle against terrorism easier. But we are judges. When we sit in judgment, we are subject to judgment… There is no security without law. Satisfying the provisions of the law is an aspect of national security.”

Adalah vs. Minister of Interior (2007) – Right to Dignity

Background: Palestinians were prevented from entering Israel (for family unification, etc.) due to security threats.

Results: The Court ruled in favor of the state.

Meaning:

  • The majority opinion agreed that the constitutional right to family life derives from the right to human dignity. However, the justices ruled that this does not necessarily entail that there is a right to exercise the right to family life in Israel.
  • The court also ruled that even if there was a violation of constitutional rights, including the right to equality, it is a proportional violation that meets the requirements of the ‘limitation clause’.
  • The majority ruled that the restrictions imposed by the law were proportional due to the exceptions granted by the law.

Noar Kehalacha Association vs. Ministry of Education (2009) – Right to Equality

Background: A new “Ashkenazi track” was introduced in an ultra-orthodox girls’ school.

Results: The court ruled that the separation and differentiation of the two tracks was discriminatory.

Meaning:

  • The Ministry of Education was ordered to ensure that the order was complied with; failing which, it should consider canceling the school’s license and subsidy.
  • The school was ordered to remove the physical barriers and eliminate any indication of discrimination.

The Academic Center for Law and Business vs. Minister of Treasury (2009) – Right to Dignity

Background: The 2004 Prisons Ordinance Amendment allowed Israel to privatize prisons. The Academic Center for Law and Business (ACLB) argued this was disrespectful and inappropriate towards the prisoners.

Results: The Court invalidated the amendment.

Meaning:

  • A future violation of human rights, and there is no certainty that this will occur → ABSTRACT model.
  • Human rights of prison inmates are violated *de facto* by the transfer of powers from the state to private, profit-making hands.
  • The public purposes that give imprisonment legitimacy are undermined, and the inmates become a means for the private corporation to make profits. Transforming prisoners into a means of financial gain is incompatible with human dignity.