International Law

            C.A. 141/54

 

           

LILY WOLFF-BLOCH AND ANOTHER

v.

JERUSALEM DISTRICT ASSESSING OFFICER

 

 

In the Supreme Court sitting as a Court of Civil Appeal

[March 6, 1956]

Before Cheshin D.P., Sussman J.,  and Witkon J.

 

 

Income Tax - Income Tax Ordinance - Expenses incurred in production of income - Dentist - Period of study abroad - Expenses of - Whether for purpose of preserving existing asset.

 

            The appellant, a dentist who had travelled to the U.S.A., and had spent 10 weeks there studying the latest developments in her profession, claimed the expenses so incurred by her as a deduction for purposes of income tax on the ground that they were incurred "in the production of income." The Assessing Officer refused to allow the deduction and this decision was upheld by the District Court.

 

            Held, allowing an appeal (Cheshin D.P. dissenting), that the expenditure incurred by the appellant was incurred for the purpose of preserving "an existing asset" and could properly be deducted.

           

Palestine case referred to:

 

(1)   Income Tax Appeal 11/45; Mendel Scharf v. Assessing Officer, Jerusalem, (1946), 13 P.L.R. 89.

 

Israel case referred to:

 

(2)   Income Tax Appeal 1/49, Tel Aviv; A.B. v. Tel Aviv Assessing Officer, (1950/52), 7 P.M. 79.

 

English cases referred to:

 

(3) Simpson v. Tate; [1925] 2 K.B. 214.

(4) Lomax (Inspector of Taxes) v. Newton; [1953] 2 All E.R. 801.

(5) Mitchell (Inspector of Taxes) v. B.W. Noble, Ltd,; [1927] 1 K.B. 719.

(6) Spofforth and Prince v. Golder (Inspector of Taxes); [1945] 1 All E.R. 363.

           

American cases referred to:

 

(7) Coughlin v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue; 203 F. 2d. 307.

(8) Welch v. Helvering; (1933) 290 U.S. 111, 54 S.Ct. 8.

 

Dori for the appellants.

Shimron for the respondent.

 

WITKON J: This is an income tax appeal. The appellant, a dentist by profession, travelled abroad for further study, and the question is whether she may deduct the expenses of her journey from her income for the purposes of calculating her tax. The facts are undisputed. The appellant practises in a special branch of dentistry called orthodontics, and in that profession she serves in the capacity of director of the orthodontic department of the Strauss Health Center in Jerusalem as well as in her private clinic. In 1951, she spent some two-and-a-half months in the United States for the purpose of further study, and her expenses were expenses she incurred for this purpose only. The expert witness, Dr. Levin-Epstein, gave evidence  - and I emphasize this - that further study of that kind is not available in Israel, and that a person of professional status such as the appellant is obliged to go abroad from time to time to study new methods and to observe for himself the progress of scientific knowledge and techniques, if he wishes to maintain his standard as an expert in his field. In actual fact, the witness was not prepared to affirm that but for that journey the appellant's earnings would be expected to drop or to dwindle. But he did confirm (if his confirmation were necessary) that the professional standard determines the size of the fee - meaning that even if the doctor does not maintain his standard on material grounds alone, his standard nevertheless innuences the extent of his earnings.

 

            The Assessing Officer did not allow the deduction of this expense and the District Court confirmed his decision. The question is not of the easiest. As is well known, capital expenditure cannot be deducted from income, while income expenses alone, that is expenses incurred by the tax-payer in the course of producing his income, may be so deducted. The law distinguishes between the source of income and the income itself, that is to say, between the process of producing and its capital framework and structure. The rule is that expenses, relating to the production of income, laid out in that same process may be deducted, whereas expenses relating to the capital structure of the earnings may not be deducted. Here, however, we must make a reservation and distinguish between two kinds of expenses relating to capital: those intended to create or improve a capital asset, and those intended only to preserve an existing asset. Expenses of the second sort may also be income expenses, with a recognised place among the remaining current expenses in a profit-and-loss account which the earner has incurred in the process of producing his income. For the notion "income" includes the idea that in the course of producing the fruits, the capital shall remain untouched and preserved in its entirety. Whoever examines the list of expenses in section 11(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, will discover that the majority are expenses relating to capital assests, such as interest, rent, repairs and depreciation; nevertheless they may be deducted, since they are not directed to the production of a capital asset or its improvement but to its preservation only. This is true not only of corporeal capital Assets; expenses laid out for the purpose of preserving incorporeal assets, such as goodwill, are deductible.

           

            We shall examine the present question in the light of those rules. I have no doubt that the professional standard of a doctor or member of any other liberal profession is a capital asset, and it follows that the expenditure incurred by the appellant in her journey relates to the source of her income and not to the process of producing the income. But, as stated, the question is whether that expense was directed to the production of a new capital asset or to the improvement of an existing capital asset, or whether her purpose was but to preserve the asset in its existing state. Appellant's counsel was not unaware of this problem, and he emphasized again and again in all his submissions, both in the District Court and before us, that the object of the journey was not to add to the appellant's professional standard, but to save it from falling. According to the submission of counsel for the appellant, the present case is thus distinguishable from the case of the lawyer who travelled to England and completed his studies at the Bar: Scharf v. Assessing Officer (l), as well as from the case of the accountant who travelled to South Africa in the hope of finding new clients and expanding his earnings: A.B. v. Tel Aviv Assessing Officer (2). The expenses of those two, the lawyer and the accountant, were laid out for the purpose of improving their position. The appellant, however, went away for further study not for the purpose of improving her position, as she contends, but for the sake of preserving what exists, since if she does not succeed in bringing her professional knowledge up to date from time to time, she will ultimately lower her standards and cease to be a leader in her profession.

           

            As stated, this case concerns an incorporeal asset. Corporeal capital assets have secured the recognition of the legislator as to their temporariness, and the law seeks in several ways to save the owner of the asset from losing his capital in the course of producing his income. One way is to allow the cost of repairs according to section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance. Another way is to deduct the amount of depreciation from the income, by taking into consideration the fact that the value of the asset depreciates during the period of its life on account of wear and tear. Many complain of the fact that the law does not also take into consideration the "wear of human capital" that serves as a source of income in every livelihood which derives from the physical or mental force of man. But even if the legislator had given thought to the matter, it is impossible to say that the expert knowledge and skill of a professional man are subject to wear and tear from their use, in the way that machinery wears out from use. It cannot be said that the professional standard of a person of professional status is expected to "wear out"; but it is possible that it runs the danger of "obsolescence". The law takes into consideration the obsolescence of plant and machinery that have become useless and the owners of which sell them in order to change them, and do not obtain for them a price equal to their capital price with a deduction for the amount of depreciation given them in the past. That is a loss flowing from the fact that the machine can no longer compete with more modern machinery and must be sold before its owner has taken full advantage of the annual rate of depreciation. And if a machine is liable to become obsolete as compared with more modern machines, so, too, will the expert knowledge and skill of a professional man. The knowledge and skill themselves have not been affected or become worn, but new inventions and methods have appeared to take the place of the old and have affected their value as profit-bearing assets.

 

            If we ask in what way the law takes into consideration incorporeal capital assets, we shall see that until the amendment of the law in 1952, a deduction was allowed of a sum equal to the capital price of the old asset (less the total amount of the past depreciation and the sale price) or a sum equal to the capital price of the new asset which ever was the smaller sum. This provision, which was contained in section 11(1)(c), was repealed with the imposition of income tax on capital profits according to section 5A, and thereafter a person must seek compensation for his losses in consequence of obsolescence within the framework of the provisions of section 5A(11)(e) or 5A(12), namely, by way of set-off against a capital profit or by way of increasing the capital price of the new asset for the purposes of depreciation or for the purposes of calculating the capital profit at the time of its sale.

           

            It is clear that the appellant cannot rely on any provision such as the provision in section 11(1)(c), first because it has been repealed, as I have said; secondly, because it was limited to certain corporeal assets; and, thirdly, because in point of fact that provision did not allow the expenditure of a sum of money on the purchase of the new asset, but the deduction of such amount of depreciation for the old asset as had not been taken advantage of as a consequence of its early sale, with the proviso that that deduction should not be greater than the price of the new asset. But I have referred here to the case of obsolescence and have spent some time on it because it shows us, in my opinion, that the loss in consequence of obsolescence is indeed a capital loss, yet nevertheless the deduction formerly allowed for it by section 11(1)(c) was charged to the profit-and-loss account, meaning that it is a burden on income revenue. The rule is that the profit-and-loss account may not be charged with a capital loss, and that includes a loss resulting from wear and tear and obsolescence; whereas the law allowed the deductions set out in section 11(1)(c) and (i) for obsolescence and for depreciation as exceptions to that rule, meaning that no deductions will be allowed outside that statutory framework.

 

            But that does not settle the problem arising here. Deductions for depreciation and obsolescence, within the meaning of sections 11(1)(c) and 11(1)(i), are chargeable to income with which the taxpayer is able to restore to himself capital that has been reduced as a consequence of the wear to the asset, or capital that has been lost, completely or partially, as a consequence of the obsolescence of the asset before its due time. The fact is that a person seeking such deductions cannot do so except within the existing statutory provisions. The appellant, however, did not seek such deductions, but rather, according to her contention, is entitled to deduct a certain expense that she incurred in order to maintain her professional standard. We must weigh that argument according to the rules applicable. I have already noted that if the expense was indeed incurred in connection with a capital asset, but not for the sake of producing or improving it, but for the sake of preserving it - and that within the framework of acts pertaining to revenue from the organic point of view - then there is room for allowing the deduction of that expense. In my opinion, the question is, in the end, whether the purpose of the expense was to create a new asset or to improve an existing asset or whether the purpose was to preserve an asset in its existing condition.

           

            No clear answer is to be found in the English cases. The authorities for the most part deal with assessments under Schedule E, namely, "wage-earning" taxpayers. But it is well-known that the provision in Rule 9 applies to such assessments, and that it is so narrow that hardly any expenses are allowable save those that, if not incurred by the employee, would involve him in a breach of duty towards his employer. Accordingly, the court has not allowed even membership fees in a learned society or subscriptions to scientific periodicals: in the cases of Simpson v. Tate (3), and Lomax v. Newton (4), the court allowed special expenditures as a consequence of compulsory participation in conferences, but no other expenses the outlay of which was not one of the conditions of service. The Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income considered this question in its Final Report (London, June 1955, Cmd. 9474), and stated: --

 

            "The present form of the Rule bears hardly upon persons of professional status in another way. We do not use the word "professional" here in any precise sense: we have in mind all those persons in office or employment whose work is of such a kind that they are expected to employ in it an equipment of expert or specialised knowledge. Doctors, teachers, lawyers, scientific workers, clergymen fall into this category. Such persons require to maintain and often to increase their professional equipment of knowledge, and it must often be quite impossible to relate the expenses of so doing to any specific obligation in performing the duties of a particular period. Their obligation is not only to be skilled in learning but to remain skilled in learning as conditions change. The expenses of so doing are represented by subscriptions to professional and learned societies, purchases of books and magazines, attendance at conferences, travel for research, purchase of instruments, etc. Yet, under the present rule, the Revenue is forced into making what seems to us rather unreal distinctions between what an employer insists upon and what he does not, between what a person is obliged to do in the performance of his duty and what it is desirable that he should do in order to be able to perform his duty: and between current expenses of maintaining knowledge or skill for one post and capital expenses of acquiring improved knowledge or skill to qualify for another post. It is not to be wondered at that the administration of Rule 9 is attended by rather widespread dissatisfaction."

 

Further on, the Royal Commission suggests a relaxation of the severity of Rule 9 and to exclude from it the test of the essentiality of the expenditure from the point of view of a condition of a contract of service. The fact is that the Commission did not propose that this amendment should bring in its wake the allowing of all the expenses referred to in the above passage or that it would have the effect of wiping out all distinction between the employed and the self-employed worker. Such amendment, the Commission stated, ''will not provide for the expense of 'self-improvement', except so far as such expense is fairly related to the duties of the current employment. " But it is precisely from that reservation that one is given to understand that as far as the independent person of professional status is concerned, a certain liberality is followed in allowing such expenses.

 

            I have no doubt that in the United States, the appellant would have succeeded in her appeal. In the case of Coughlin v. C.I.R. (7), the United States Court of Appeals (Second Circuit) dealt with the appeal of a lawyer, an expert in taxation, who laid out lecture-fees, travelling and living expenses, while taking part in the Annual Institute on Federal Taxation which took place in New York, and who wished to deduct his expenses from his income. The appellant was a partner in a firm of lawyers in the town of Binghamton, and it was necessary that at least one of the partners be an expert in tax matters, and that he should remain an expert and should know his way around all the changes and innovations in the law and the case-law. His partners relied upon his special expert knowledge. The case was conducted as a test case, and representatives of the New York State Bar Association and representatives of the American Medical Association also took part in it. The court decided in favour of the taxpayer. Admittedly, it was not essential that the taxpayer should bring his knowledge up to date in that field, and he would have remained a lawyer and partner in his firm without that, but he was under a moral and professional duty to maintain his expert knowledge. To quote from the judgment of the court (loc. cit. (7), at pp.309-310) :--

           

"...Here the petitioner did not need a renewal of his license to practise and it may be assumed that he could have continued as a member of his firm whether or not he kept currently informed as to the law of Federal taxation. But he was morally bound to keep so informed and did so in part by means of his attendance at this session of the Institute. It was a way well adapted to fulfil his professional duty to keep sharp the tools he actually used in his going trade or business. It may be that the knowledge he thus gained incidentally increased his fund of       learning in general and, in that sense, the cost of acquiring it may have been a personal expense; but we think that the immediate. Over all professional need to incur the expenses in order to perform his work with due regard to the current status of the law so overshadows the personal aspect that it is the decisive feature.

           

            "(2) It serves also to distinguish these expenditures from those made to acquire a capital asset. Even if in its cultural aspect knowledge should for tax purposes be considered in the nature of a capital asset as was suggested in Welch v. Helvering (8), the rather evanescent character of that for which the petitioner spent his money deprives it of the sort of permanency such a concept embraces."

           

            I agree with the ruling that was laid down in that judgment, and in my opinion it ought to serve as a guide to us. I see no need for dwelling at length on the English authorities in connection with expenses that a person bears in order to preserve his moral standing and his good name. Such expenses were allowed in several cases (for example, Mitchell v. Nable (5)), and not allowed in others (for example, in Spofforth and Prince v. Golder (6)), because the court thought that that was an expense of a personal nature and not solely professional. In the present case, there is no fear that the expenditure, in whole or in part, is personal. In my opinion, the sole question is whether this expenditure is designed to preserve an existing asset or whether it is calculated to add to and improve it. The test is, what is the asset? If one regards the knowledge and skill of a professional person altogether as one single whole, which we previously called "professional standard", then it may be said that the expenditure is designed to preserve the asset, whereas if we break down the generality of knowledge and skill into parts and examine each one of them separately, we will find that every bit of knowledge and every new method that the appellant learnt in her journey constitutes a new asset, an addition to the existing capital. I prefer the first approach to the second. A bare asset such as "professional standard" exists as a whole, and as long as the nurturing of that asset does not exceed the bounds of preserving what exists and is not designed to provide the professional man with another standing or another standard, an expense incurred by its owner for that purpose ought not to be regarded as a capital expense.

 

            I have not overlooked the fact that this decision is likely to present assessing officers with difficult problems. Not only must they distinguish between personal expenditure and expenses connected with a profession, but they must also examine every professional expense of the kind in question and decide on its substance from the point of view of the professional standing of the particular taxpayer before them. They must consider each case according to its circumstances. But I do not think that the problem arising here is different in nature or more difficult than the problems that assessing officers deal with in relation to other taxpayers. Whenever the expense in question is not incurred for the purpose of the production or supply of goods or services, but in connection with capital serving as a source of income, the question always arises as to what that connection is: was the money expended for the purpose of producing the asset or for the purpose of preserving it? I have no doubt that only in rare cases will the taxpayer be able to prove, as the present taxpayer has proved, that he really incurred the expenses of travelling abroad for the purpose of "further study" in the sense stated here. If the Assessing Officer, or the District Court on appeal from him, had found as a fact that the travelling expenses were not incurred in the present case for the sake of preserving an existing asset, but for the purpose of improving it, we should not have interfered with his decision if it had been based on the evidence. The advertising expenses of a business man serve as an example of an expense which may be an income expense or a capital expense, depending on the extent of the business and the expense. The question is one of degree. In the present case, evidence was brought which supports the taxpayer's contention, and that being so, we have only to examine the legal conclusion that the court arrived at on that evidence. That conclusion appears to me to be erroneous, as I have endeavoured to explain, and for that reason I am of opinion that the appeal should be allowed, and that the assessment should be amended as prayed for in the notice of appeal.

           

SUSSMAN J. I agree.

 

CHESHIN D.P. I regret that in the circumstances of the present case I cannot recognise the fine distinction between further study for the purpose of acquiring new knowledge and further study for the purpose of maintaining a professional standard. If the appellant had contended that she had forgotten her learning, or part of her learning, and proceeded overseas in order to revive her memory, she would have been entitled to demand a deduction within the framework of section 11(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, as if all the trouble she had gone to and all the expenses she had incurred were designed only to restore the sources of creation of her income - that is to say, her medical knowledge - to their former state. But she did not so contend and she did not do so. She travelled abroad in order to complete her professional studies, that is, to observe for herself modern developments in the branch of medicine in which she is engaged, and to gain some idea of and add to her knowledge of techniques and new methods of treatment. I do not regard that act as an effort to maintain a professional standard, like the repairs that have to be done to machinery and tools of work which serve as a means of acquiring income. It is plain from the evidence that no danger threatened the appellant's position as a dentist, and that her income would not have dropped even if she had not travelled for the purpose of further study. I do not dispute the fact that the new knowledge which the appellant gained will be of great use to her, and will even increase her earnings in the future; but the further study here was, in my opinion, capital investment, a capital expense directed to the capital structure of the appellant's earnings, and it should be regarded as improvements, the expenses incurred in the making of which are not deductible according to section 12. For that reason, I should be disposed to dismiss the appeal.

 

            Appeal allowed

            Judgment given on March 6, 1956.

            H.C.J  101/54

 

           

FAKHRY KAMEL JIDAY

v.

THE CHIEF EXECUTION OFFICER HAIFA DISTRICT COURT

 and CLAIRE HANNA SWEIDAN

 

 

In the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice

[February 4, 1955]

Before Agranat J., Goitein J. and Berinson J.

 

 

Court of Catholic Melkite Community - Composition of court - Members appointed by resident of Lebanon - Relations between Israel and Lebanon - Whether state of war - United Nations - General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Lebanon - Termination of war - Trading with the enemy.

 

            The second respondent, the wife of the petitioner, claimed maintenance against her husband in the religious court of her community, the Greek Catholic Melkite Community. The religious court gave judgment in her favour and the petitioner, her husband, appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Community. The Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and ordered the petitioner to pay his wife the sum of IL. 90.- per month as follows: IL. 60.- monthly, commencing April, 1953, and the balance from his share in his father's estate, due after the father's death. The second respondent duly applied to the first respondent to execute the judgment. The petitioner thereupon opposed the execution of the judgment. The Execution Officer rejected the opposition. Accordingly a petition was presented to this court and an order nisi was granted calling upon the first respondent to show cause why he should not refrain from executing the judgment of the religious court of October 22, 1953. On the return day arguments on behalf of the petitioner and the second respondent were heard.

           

            Held : that the order nisi should be discharged.

           

English cases referred to:

 

(1) Robson v. Premier Oil and Pipe Line Company, Limited; (1915) 2 Ch. 124.

(2) Tingley v. Muller; (1917) 2 Ch. 144.

(3)   Arab Bank, Ltd. v. Barclays Bank (Dominion, Colonial and Overseas); (1954) A.C. 495.

(4)   Ertel Bieber and Company v. Rio Tinto Company, Limited; Dynamit Actien-Gesellschaft v. same; Vereinigte Koenigs and Laurahuette Actien-Gesellschaft fuer Bergbau und Huettenbe-trieb v. same; (1918) A.C. 260.

(5) Joyce v. Director of Public Prosecutions; (1946) A.C. 347.

(6)   Schering, Limited v. Stockholms Enskilda Bank Aktiebolag and Others; (1946) A.C. 219.

(7) Hangkam Kwingtong Woo v. Liu Lan Fong alias Liu Ah Lan: (1951) A.C. 707.

 

Sharf for the petitioner.

No appearance for the first respondent.

Koussa and Margarian for the second respondent.

Bar-Or, Deputy State Attorney, for the Attorney-General.

 

GOITEIN J. giving the judgment of the court, and after stating the facts as set out in the headnote, continued: The petitioner based his case on three main grounds:

 

1) The religious court which gave judgment does not bear the same name as the tribunal mentioned in the Palestine (Amendment) Order in Council, 1939;

 

2) the three judges who composed the Court of Appeal were not members of the religious community to which the parties belonged;

 

3) the Patriarch who appointed the members of the Court of Appeal resides in Lebanon and is therefore considered as an enemy. By the Law of Israel, therefore, he may not appoint judges to sit in Israel.

 

            The arguments of the second respondent in reply to these contentions may be summarized as follows:

           

1) The community uses several names but there is only one Melkite Community and the court which sat in the present case is the court of that community;

 

2) according to the regulations of the community, Catholics who are not members of the Melkite community may be appointed as judges of the Appellate Court;

 

3) the Patriarch is not an enemy. The State of Israel raises no objection to his activities as Head of the Melkite Church. The State of Israel permits his representative in Israel, Bishop Hakim, to cross to Lebanon in order to meet the Patriarch.

 

            We shall deal with the petitioner's three submissions in the order set out above. As to the first submission:

           

            Article 51 of the Palestine Order in Council of 1952, prior to its amendment, read: "Subject to the provisions of Articles 64-67 inclusive, jurisdiction in matters of personal status shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions of this Part by the Courts of the religious communities established and exercising jurisdiction at the date of this Order." The words "established and exercising jurisdiction at the date of this Order" were deleted by the amendment of 1939 which also inserted a list of nine Christian communities, and the Jewish community, as follows:

           

            The Eastern (Orthodox) Community.

            The Latin (Catholic) Community.

            The Gregorian Armenian Community.

            The Syrian (Catholic) Community.

            The Armenian (Catholic) Community.

            The Chaldean (Uniate) Community.

            The Jewish Community.

            The Greek Catholic Melkite Community.

            The Maronite Community.

            The Syrian Orthodox Community.

           

            From this list it is clear that there is only one Melkite community and there is no other community the name of which at all resembles the Greek Catholic Melkite community.

           

            The judgment of the Court of Appeal was issued on the Court's note paper. The heading in Hebrew read: "The Religious Court of the Catholic Community". In the Hebrew name the word "Melkite" is missing. But immediately following the Hebrew name appears the English title "Catholic Melkite Religious Court", and above those words a heading in Arabic which may be translated "The Religious Court of the Catholic Melkite Community". Also, on the seal of the court affixed to the various documents appears the phrase in English "Catholic Melkite Religious Court of Appeal".

           

            We find nothing in the Order in Council which makes it necessary for the religious courts to make use of any particular name. The correct way of formulating the question, therefore, is: Was the religious court which tried the dispute between a husband and a wife, members of the Greek Catholic Melkite community, the religious court of the Greek Catholic Melkite community? We have no hesitation in saying that the court competent under the Order in Council to deal with cases between members of that community sat in the case before us, and furthermore that that court is the only court having jurisdiction to deal with matters of personal status of members of that community. Consequently, the petitioner's argument that the first respondent should refrain from executing the judgment of the religious court of the Greek Catholic Melkite Community on account of some inaccuracy (if it really exists) appearing in the title of the court on the papers, is unsubstantiated, and we do not have to rely upon the affidavit of Mr. Koussa to the effect that the judgment in fact emanated from the court of that community.

 

            As to the petitioner's second contention, the answer is found in the regulations, in the Arabic language, brought to our attention by counsel for the second respondent. The regulations were printed in Lebanon and are entitled "Lettre Apostolique, Donnee Motu Proprio par Sa Saintete le Pape Pie XII Glorieusement Regnant - Les Proces Pour l'Eglise Orientale" - (authorised translations by the Papal Committee for the Code of Canon Law for the Orient). Regulation 71 of those Regulations reads: "The judges and officials mentioned in Regulations 38 et seq. may be chosen also from persons who are members of different communities". From the evidence of Mr. Koussa, who is appearing for the second respondent, and who is also the Legal Adviser of the Greek Catholic Melkite Community, it appears that this Regulation is also applicable to the Appellate Tribunal which sat in this case.

           

            Counsel for the petitioner, in making this submission, did not direct our attention to any law or regulation concerning the constitution of a Christian Ecclesiastical Court. There is no indication in the Order in Council which might be taken as forbidding or rendering incompetent a court some of whose members belong to another community.

           

            We must remember that the Melkite Community is one of the Catholic Communities at the head of which is the Pope, resident in the Vatican. We do not therefore see anything wrong in the composition of the court if, in the case before us, there sat Catholic judges belonging to another community. It follows that the first respondent was right in refusing to entertain this objection made by the petitioner to the execution of the judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Melkite community.

           

            The third, and the most interesting, submission put forward by the petitioner, relates to the fact that the appointment of the judges who constituted the Appellate Tribunal was made by the Melkite Patriarch whose residence is in Lebanon. If I understood him correctly, counsel for the petitioner bases his submission on the following propositions:

           

a) Lebanon is in a state of war with Israel or at least is not in a state of peace with her;

 

b) every person who resides in Lebanon is to be regarded as an enemy with whom all intercourse and contacts are prohibited ;

 

c) the Melkite Patriarch resides in Lebanon and is, therefore, an enemy and as such cannot appoint judges to determine any matter, religious or secular, in Israel ;

 

d) in consequence, the judges who sat in the present appeal, by virtue of an appointment made by the Patriarch in Lebanon, gave a judgment contrary to the law of Israel, and the first respondent, therefore, should refuse to execute it.

 

            Counsel for the second respondent stressed that most of these submissions were political rather than legal. He did not reply to them seriatim but he did argue that they were all based on an incorrect supposition of fact, namely; that the Government of Israel does not permit contacts or intercourse with the Patriarch in Lebanon. The opposite is true. The Government of Israel permits Monsignor Hakim to cross the Lebanese frontier in order to meet with the Patriarch and discuss with him religious questions of concern to the Melkite community.

           

            It is a matter for regret that counsel for the petitioner did not develop his ideas fully but merely placed them before us. He quoted no authority in support of the supposed prohibition upon religious intercourse. Nevertheless the submission is a weighty one and we must deal with it.

           

            As in many other spheres, so in its relations with its neighbours, the State of Israel is unique. It may not be possible to find any direct support for the submissions brought before us, either in Oppenheim or in any other book on Public International Law. But we have a special agreement with Lebanon which clearly defines the legal aspects of relations between the two countries, and we must therefore first examine that agreement very closely in order to determine accurately the legal nature of the relations subsisting between the two countries. Before doing so, let me stress that both Israel and Lebanon are members of the United Nations and are bound to conduct themselves in accordance with what is laid down in the Charter. For that reason, in order to find the answer to the question whether Israel is in a state of war with Lebanon, we have to look to both these international documents which have been published in the State Records of Israel.

 

            Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Charter of the United Nations provides: "The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice".

           

            Article 37, paragraph 1, states: "Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means incidated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council," and according to Article 38 : "Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 33 to 37, the Security Council may, if all the parties to any dispute so request, make recommendations to the parties with a view to a pacific settlement of the dispute."

           

            The consequence of this is that States members of the United Nations cannot be in a state of war so long as they have made no effort to reach agreement with their enemy or so long as the Security Council has not reached a decision concerning the state of affairs which has come into existence between the two States.

           

            So far as we are concerned there also exists, as I have already mentioned, a special and additional international obligation imposed upon Lebanon and Israel not to employ warlike methods to achieve a political objective desired by one or other of them. Article 1(1) of the Israel-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement of March 23, 1949, imposes the following obligations upon each of its parties:

           

            "The injunction of the Security Council against resort to military force in the settlement of the Palestine question shall henceforth be scrupulously respected by both Parties".

           

            The subparagraph immediately following describes the situation so clearly that it is impossible to assume for one moment that a state of war exists between the two countries once they have signed the Agreement:

           

            "No aggressive action by the armed forces of either party shall be undertaken, planned or threatened against the people or the armed forces of the other".

           

            And by subparagraph 3:

           

            "The right of each party to its security and freedom from fear of attack by the armed forces of the other shall be fully respected." Article 3 of the Agreement establishes a general armistice between the armed forces of the two parties, paragraph 3 of that Article clearly stating: "No warlike act or act of hostility shall be conducted from territory controlled by one of the parties to this Agreement against the other party."

           

            By Article 8 of the Agreement, "the present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed." It is also of interest to recall that by Article 8, paragraph 3, if the parties wish to revise the Agreement or any of its provisions or to suspend its application, other than Articles 1 and 3, they may do so by mutual consent. In short, the two countries bound themselves not to employ force one against the other. In addition to this it is a fact that the Agreement has now been in force for more than six years. It follows therefore that the underlying submission advanced by counsel for the petitioner that the two countries are in a state of war is completely unfounded. True, they may not yet have reached a state of peace, but those principles which forbid the maintenance of contacts with the enemy apply to a very different situation, namely, one of actual war.

           

            Our situation might properly be described as one of termination of war. In Oppenheim's International Law (vol. II, 7th edition, 1952, at p. 596) it is said: "A war may be terminated in three different ways. 1) Belligerents may abstain from further acts of war, and glide into peaceful relations without expressly making peace through a special treaty..."

           

            Furthermore when representatives of the Government of Egypt appear before the Security Council and argue that they are entitled to prevent Israel ships from passing through the Suez Canal on the ground that a state of war exists between Egypt and Israel, the representatives of Israel always give the same answer: there is no state of war between Israel and her neighbours.

 

            The second proposition, too, is unfounded. If there is no specific law in Israel - and Mr. Sharf has not referred us to any such law - prohibiting all relations between an Israeli and a resident of Lebanon, we cannot decide that such relations are illegal.

           

            In England, together with specific laws such as the Trading with the Enemy legislation, there exists also the common law which prohibits intercourse, not only of a commercial character, in time of war between persons resident in England and enemy territory. In the eighteenth century the judges restricted this prohibition to commercial intercourse, but during the nineteenth they extended it to cover other forms of contact.

           

            In the present century, when war has become global and all contact is considered dangerous, the prohibition has been broadened still further and in time of war almost every kind of contact between a person resident in enemy or enemy-occupied territory is regarded with suspicion. (See Robson v. Premier Oil and Pipe line Co. Ltd. (1).)

           

            It is interesting to note that modern judgments stress that the prohibition today is to be found, in nearly every case, in statute law and not in the common law, and that all instances where the Crown has granted a licence, whether general or specific, are excluded from the scope of the prohibition.

           

            The prohibition derives from the determination of the State to prevent activities likely to be of advantage to the enemy in time of war and the judges do not prohibit benefits likely to accrue to the enemy after the termination of the war. The following dictum of Lord Parker in Tingley v. Muller (2) (at p. 158), is well-known and is often cited in judgments:

           

            "The prohibition against doing anything for the benefit of an enemy contemplates his benefit during the war and not the possible advantage he may gain when peace comes".

           

            In the recent judgment of the House of Lords in Arab Bank Ltd. v. Barclay's Bank (3), it is said (at p. 498) :

           

            "Meanwhile the State of Israel had passed certain legislation... On May 19 it passed a Law and Administration Ordinance... By Article 11 of that Ordinance, it was provided that the law which existed in Palestine on May 14, 1948, would remain in force... Since the law which existed in Palestine on May 14, 1948, embraced the common law of England in regard to trading or communicating with the enemy, it became illegal for anyone in Israel to have intercourse with anyone in enemy territory."

           

            From the arguments of counsel in that case it appears that they agreed that the English common law concerning intercourse with the enemy in time of war also applies in Israel. But for that I would have thought, with all respect to the learned Law Lords, that they did not pay sufficient attention to Article 46 of the Palestine Order in Council which introduced into this country the English common law only in so far as local legislation does not extend or apply. But in Palestine (as now in Israel), legislation has been passed dealing with intercourse with the enemy, such as the Defence (Finance) Regulations, 1941, and the Trading with the Enemy Ordinance, 1939, According to this latter Ordinance, a person will be regarded as trading with the enemy if he has any "commercial, financial or other intercourse or dealings with or for the benefit of an enemy..." From this it follows that the prohibition against an Israeli trading with an enemy or maintaining intercourse with him derives not from the English common law but from the mandatory Ordinance. To what does the Ordinance refer? To commercial or financial intercourse but not to other types of intercourse with an "enemy" within the meaning of this legislation. The fact that the word "intercourse" is inserted between "commercial, financial" and "dealings" suggests that the legislator had in mind commercial intercourse or at least did not have in mind intercourse of a religious nature. It is perfectly true that in the English judgments, from the end of the eighteenth century up to the year 1954, many dicta can be found to the effect that intercourse is not restricted to commercial intercourse but extends to all intercourse (see the speech of Lord Dunedin in Ertel Bieber and Co. v. Rio Tinto Co. Ltd. (4), at p. 267), but there are no decisions concerned with intercourse other than financial, commercial or similar intercourse. I do not include trials for treason, for they are concerned with circumstances of a completely different character. (See Joyce v. Director of Public Prosecutions (5).)

 

            Immediately after the termination of the Second World War the House of Lords dealt with the whole question of intercourse with the enemy in the leading case of Schering Ltd. v. Stockholms Enskilda Bank Aktiebolag (6), in which it relied on the Ertel Bieber case (4) of the First World War, and quoted the following remarks of Lord Dunedin :

           

            "From these cases I drew the conclusion that upon the ground of public policy the continued existence of contractual relations (note the words contractual relations) between subjects and...... persons voluntarily residing in the enemy country which (1) give opportunities for the conveyance of information which may hurt the conduct of the war, or (2) may tend to increase the resources of the enemy... is obnoxious and prohibited by our law".

           

Lord Thankerton in the Schering case (6), added (at p. 238):

 

            "The contracts which fall under this principle of public policy are clearly contracts the performance... of which after the outbreak of war may involve the consequences which the principle...... seeks to avoid, but it is equally clear that there are certain well established exceptions to the contracts thus broadly defined."

           

            Can we deduce from these judgments - and as I have emphasized the judgments deal with only one type of intercourse, commercial intercourse - that the appointment of judges by the Patriarch is likely to open the way to the conveyance of information which may hurt the conduct of the war (when there is no war), or may tend to increase the strength and resources of the enemy? And the stress which the English judgments place upon the situation existing flagrante bello excludes completely from their contemplation the type of relation subsisting today between Israel and the Lebanon.

           

            I have found nothing in the authorities - and counsel for the petitioner has not referred us to any such authority - to indicate that the prohibition applies to priests when concerned with religious matters. For example: there are in Israel a number of Jews who have immigrated from Egypt. Suppose an immigrant were to bring a case before the Rabbinical Courts in which the question arises when or whether he was married or whether he is somebody's heir - and the answers are to be found in the offices of the Rabbinate in Cairo - I should have thought that so long as there is no war between the two countries, the Chief Rabbi of Israel could legally apply to the Chief Rabbi of Cairo in order to obtain authoritative information required for the purposes of the case before the Rabbinical Court. I would even go so far as to say that intercourse of this character is permitted so long as the law does not forbid it. If the statement made by the second respondent is true - and no one has denied it in this case - that Israel authorizes the journeys undertaken by Monsignor Hakim from Israel to Lebanon in order to confer there with the Melkite Patriarch, then you have here a licence on the part of the State and that, on all accounts, is sufficient to remove the prohibition on the intercourse between the inhabitants of enemy states.

 

            Counsel for the petitioner desires to extend the English common law to unreasonable limits. In this connection I would recall the words of Lord Simonds in the case of Woo v. Lan Fong (7), at p. 720:

           

            "... the contentions of the appellant involve a grave extension of the common law, and that that extension means not merely the application of old principles to new circumstances or their adjustment to fresh needs, but the rewriting of them in conditions in which their foundations are shaken."

           

            The judges of the Religious Court perform their duties as independent judges and they do not have recourse to the Patriarch in connection with cases which they are trying. It follows that when they give judgment after having heard the facts and the arguments of the litigants before them, their judgment cannot be attacked simply on the ground that there might arise some doubt whether the Patriarch who appointed them is to be considered as an enemy because he resides in a country which is itself alleged to be enemy territory.

           

            Mr. Koussa suggested another approach to the problem. He argued that although the Patriarch resides physically in Lebanon, spiritually he is to be considered as residing in each one of the countries over which his religious authority extends. I am not ready to accept this submission as made, but a similar line of argument may be accepted. If the State recognises the court of a religious community which possesses a well-known hierarchy outside its borders, then it must allow that hierarchy to perform its functions in accordance with the laws and customs of that community. If the State desires to prevent the Patriarch, who resides abroad, from dealing with the affairs of his community in Israel, then it must enact appropriate legislation.

 

            Were there any substance in the arguments put forward by counsel for the petitioner, we should have expected that the Attorney-General, who defends the interests of the State, would have supported those arguments. The representative of the Attorney-General was invited to appear in court and, if he thought fit, oppose the execution of the judgment rendered by judges appointed by the Patriarch who is physically resident in Lebanon. The representative of the Attorney-General appeared before us on the return day and informed us that he had no interest in the case and we acceded to his request that he might withdraw. We see in the absence of any opposition on the part of the Attorney-General to the execution of the judgment the agreement of the State to what has been done, in this case, by the Patriarch who resides abroad.

           

            Counsel for the petitioner attacked the judgment from another point of view, namely, that it provides for a portion of the maintenance to be met out of the inheritance which the petitioner may receive upon the death of his father. The petitioner argues that he has no wish to see his father's death and has no interest in the inheritance which will then be his. This court is unable to interfere in this or any other part of the judgment of the Religious Court since the matter of maintenance between husband and wife lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the religious courts.

           

            For these reasons the order nisi is discharged.

           

Order nisi discharged.

Judgment given on February 4, 1955

H. C. J 125/49 JULIETTE COLETTE AMADO v. 1. DIRECTOR OF THE IMMIGRANTS' CAMP, PARDESS HANNA 2. YOSEF AMADO In the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice. [April 16, 1950] Before: Smoira P., Dunkelblum J., Assaf J., Cheshin J., and Agranat J. Habeas Corpus - Order for custody of children by foreign court - Enforcement of order by High Court - Recognition of foreign judgment - Family Law - Interests of children paramount consideration. Subject to the paramount consideration of the interests of the children concerned, where a competent foreign court has granted a right of custody to husband or wife, the High Court will issue an order of habeas corpus to enforce that right. Radoyevitch v. Radoyevitch (1930 Sess. Cas. 619) referred to. A Civil Court in Paris granted a decree of divorce to the petitioner and second respondent (being respectively the wife and the husband), who were French nationals domiciled in France, and declared that the petitioner was entitled to the custody of the children, a girl aged seven years and a boy aged four and a half years at the time of the application, but ordered that the second respondent have access to them at stated times. On one of these occasions the second respondent smuggled the children out of France and brought them to Israel, where they were living with him in an immigrants' camp. The Paris Court reaffirmed the petitioner's right to custody and annulled the second respondent's right of access. The petitioner applied for an order in the nature of habeas corpus against the second respondent. It was her intention to take the children back to France; the second respondent declared that he would bring up and educate the children in Israel. Held: making absolute an order to deliver the children to the petitioner, 1. If the actual right to custody was the subject of a bona fide dispute, petitioner's claim would be a matter of personal status which must be brought before the District Court or the Rabbinical Court. But here the question of custody had already been determined, and since the application was to enforce a right already judically recognised, the High Court had jurisdiction to grant an order in the nature of habeas corpus. 2. A foreign judgment given by a competent court which determined the right to custody of the children of a marriage as a matter incidental to a decree of divorce, is a judgment in rem binding on all the world, and will be recognized in Israel, subject to the question of the welfare of the children. 3. A foreign judgment validly pronounced is presumed to be free of error both as to fact and as to law, and it is immaterial, from the point of view of its recognition in Israel, that it may be subject to appeal. 4. The fact that the parties, who bad been married in Paris both by civil process and before a Rabbi, had not been divorced in accordance with Rabbinical Law, might render invalid a second marriage contracted by either of them, but it could not affect the question of custody of the children. 5. In the circumstances of this case, and for the reasons set out in the several judgments of the court, the interests of the children were not such as would require the court to decline to give effect to the foreign judgment. Palestine cases referred to : (1) H.C. 24/40; Morris Louis Silverman (Caspi) v. Pearl Buxenbaum (Harubi), and others; (1940), 1 S.C.J. 95. (2) H.C. 118/43; Joseph Flint v. E. Jones and another; (1944), 1 A.L..R. 4. (3) H.C. 45/43; Levana Bar-Emun v. Moshe Bar-Emun; (1944), 1 A.L.R. 34. (4) C.A. 85/40; Jamil Abyad v. Isaac Ancona and another; (1944), 1 A.L.R. 34. English cases referred to: (5) The Queen v. Maria Clarke; (1857), 119 E.R. 1217. (6) Antoniye M. Radoyevitch v. Florence M. Webb of Radoyevitch; 1930 S.C. 619. (7) Salvesen of Von Lorang v. Administraton of Austrian Property; (1927) A.C. 641. (8) Stuart v. Moore; (1861) 9 H. L. Cas. 439. American cases referred to: (9) Halvey v. Halvey; 67 S. Ct. 903. Stoyanovsky for the petitioner. Michaeli for the second respondent. Glucksmann, Deputy State Attorney, for the Attorney-General. SMOIRA P. The petitioner, the mother of two children, applied to this court for an order in the nature of habeas corpus against their father, the respondent, directing him to deliver their two children into her care. She also asked for an interim order pending a final order. Both the father and the mother are French nationals. An affidavit submitted to us by the petitioner in support of her application contained the following allegations. The petitioner is the mother of the two infants, Jules Regine Amado, born on March 28, 1943, and Gilles Henri Amado, born on July 16, 1945. On June 2, 1949, the Civil Court in Paris granted a decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner against her husband, Yosef Amado. According to the decree, the custody of the children was granted to the petitioner, and their father was ordered to pay the petitioner the sum of 8,000 Francs a month for the maintenance of each of the children. The father was permitted to see the children twice a month and to have them with him during the second half of the school vacations. In accordance therewith, the petitioner handed the children over to the father on September 1, 1949, and the father was to have returned them to the mother on October 2; but the father failed to do so. The father, moreover, did not pay the mother the children's maintenance from June 1949 onwards, and on October 98, 1949, on a charge of "neglect of family" he was sentenced in absentia to four month's imprisonment, and ordered to pay the mother 20,000 Francs and the costs of the case. Since the mother could not find the children, she applied to the court in Paris. and on December 12, 1949, obtained a further judgment putting an end to the father's right to see the children or to have them with him. The petitioner attached to her petition a certified copy of that decision, which may be translated as follows: "Session of the Court (référé) of December 12, 1949, before the Deputy President and his assistant, the Registrar, undersigned, hearing the case in the absence of the President. "Whereas according to the judgment given in the presence of the parties by Tribunal No. 4 of this Court on June 2, 1949, a decree of divorce was made in favour of the wife, "And whereas that judgment granted to Mme. Amado the custody of the two children, Jules Régine, born on March 28, 1948, and Gilles Henri, born on July 16, 1945, and ordered the terms of that judgment to be carried out for the time being (exécution provisoire), ''And whereas it has been proved that Amado was sentenced by Tribunal No. 14 of this Court to four months' imprisonment for neglect of family, "And whereas, on the other hand, it has been proved that Amado, into whose care the children were committed during the second half of the long vacation, has disappeared with them and has not returned to his place of abode, "And whereas in view of the gravity of that act, Mme. Amado ought to be allowed to seize the two children committed to her custody in any place where they may be found and that any right of M. Amado to access to the children ought to be ended completely, "And whereas the matter is urgent, "Therefore, on the grounds aforesaid, we decide in the absence of Amado, who did not appear in the case although he was lawfully summoned, that as regards the substantive matter the parties must apply to the Court, but from now on and for the time being in view of the urgency, we authorise Mme. Amado to seize the infants Jules Régine and Gilles Henri Amado, the custody of whom was granted to her by this Court, in any place where they may be found, with the assistance of the Police Commandant and, if need be, with the assistance of the armed forces; "Finally terminate the right of M. Amado to access to the children, "Order the execution of this order for the time being and immediately, and even before its registration, because of its urgency, "Appoint M. Statte to deliver this order to the defendant who has not appeared and to preserve this order. "Given in Paris on the 12th day of December, 1949." (Signatures and certifications) When the mother discovered that the father had left France with the children and was keeping them in an immigrants' camp in Pardess Hanna in Israel, she, too, left France in the footsteps of the father and the children, and she also is at present in Israel. While she was trying in France to discover the whereabouts of her children, she says that she learned from her friends that the father had threatened to take revenge if they tried to take his children away from him, and for that reason did not turn directly to him and demand the return of the children to her. According to her, she even feared for the lives and safety of her children when the father should find out about her applying to this court. The petitioner is a teacher in a secondary school in Paris, and earns her own and her children's upkeep, and her parents in Paris have supported her whenever her husband has refused to carry out his obligations towards the family. Relying on this affidavit, this court issued an order nisi against the first respondent, the director of the immigrants' camp, Pardess Hanna, and against the father, the second respondent, to appear and show cause why they should not bring the said minor children before this court, and why they should not be delivered to the petitioner, and an interim order was further made directing the father to deliver the children to the first respondent, to remain in his care and control until the final hearing of the matter, and ordering the said director, for the well-being and safety of the children, not to permit the father to be in the company of the children unless a responsible person is also present and in charge. An affidavit in opposition that was filed by the father in reply to the order of habeas corpus did not, in fact, deny the main facts set out by the petitioner in her petition, save that the father states that he has never said that he would kill the children, their mother and himself if they tried to take the children from him. Tie describes this as a pure fabrication and the product of the petitioner's diseased imagination and as an illegitimate means of influencing the courts. As for the decree of divorce made against him on June 2, 1949, he argued that the judgment is not final and absolute, that he, the husband. has lodged an appeal against it, through the offices of his lawyer, to the Court of Appeals in Paris, and that the appeal has not yet reached its turn for hearing. According to him, the petitioner deliberately refrained from producing to this court a copy of the decree of divorce, since from its contents one might learn the nature of the proceedings before the court in Paris, the petitioner's character and the background to the family dispute. Dr. Stoyanovsky, counsel for petitioner, in reply to a question put to him by the court, confirmed that an appeal against the decree of divorce of June 2, 1949, was lodged before the respondent left France. The respondent devoted a large part of his reply to the order nisi to allegations against his wife, the petitioner, allegations that he also brought before the court in Paris in the divorce case. According to him, his wife does not attend to the running of the household or to the care of the children. She left their home because a man of no principles, a trickster from Bulgaria. by the name of Michael Ibenoff, who purported to found a special mystic sect at Sévres in France, introduced his wife into the sect together with many other women. At one time, this matter caused a considerable scandal in France, and Ibenoff was sentenced by a French court to four years' imprisonment and deportation from the country. The respondent sought to prove his allegations in the French court, in particular that his wife was suffering from mental disease as a result of Ibenof's influence, and that she was incapable of looking after the children; and he complains that the French court granted a decree of divorce against him without referring to his defence and found that the substance of his allegations were a ground for a religious divorce. He fears that his children will not receive a Hebrew and Jewish upbringing if they remain in the custody of the petitioner, especially in France or some similar place, and even fears that the mother will convert them to the Christian faith, or to the sect of that same Bulgarian who still has his followers in France amongst the women believers. He says that whenever he met his children, they were very depressed and would tearfully recount to him that their mother was not in fact looking after them, and they besought him to save them. Accordingly, out of concern for the fate of the children and in order to enable them to live traditional Jewish lives, to which he had always been devoted despite his living in the Diaspora, and in order to put at the disposal of his people the benefit of his skill and knowledge as a doctor, he decided to immigrate to Israel with his children. The father states that the children have been happy since they have been with him in Paris and in Israel. He has made endeavours to place the children in a suitable educational institution or in Youth Aliya 1) These are the main outlines of the story which was presented to as in the affidavits of the mother and the father. The examination of the mother and the father by counsel for the parties revealed the following additional facts : Dr. Amado was born in Izmir and went to France at about the age of 14 where he received his education. He is a doctor and is now 43 years of age. His wife, a native of France, is a teacher in a secondary school in Paris, and she is 30 years old. The couple were married in 1942, both according to civil law and Jewish law, before a rabbi in France. According to the petitioner it was her parents, and not her husband, who insisted that the marriage be solemnized before a rabbi. No steps have yet been taken towards obtaining a divorce according to Jewish law. She is ready to receive a religious divorce after the civil decree of divorce becomes final. At first the mother educated the children herself, and later entered them in a kindergarten conducted in accordance with the Montesori system, and if the children are committed into her hands by this court, she will take them to France and bring them up as heretofore. The mother confirmed, in answer to a question by the father's counsel, that the director of the kindergarten is a Jewess who has been converted to the Christian faith, and added that in the institution there are also two Israeli girls who are learning the Montesori system. She denied that the director of the institution asked her to send her children to take lessons in the Catholic catechism and she said that, if the latter were to do so, she would immediately withdraw the children from the institution. She further testified that her hus band had never objected to the children being educated in a Montesori institution. She describes her husband's fear lest she introduce her children into the Christian faith or Ibenoff's sect as a pure fabrication. Her husband contended in the divorce case that she belonged to the Ibenoff sect and that her state of mind had been influenced by Ibenoff. She had, indeed, on the advice of one of her teachers at the University, once taken an interest in Ibenoff's books, but had at no time belonged to that sect. She received a letter from Ibenoff dated March 31, 1945, and a photostat copy of it was produced to the court by counsel for the respondent. In that letter, Ibenoff invited her to go one morning to Sevres in order to participate in the prayers and exercises at break of day. In response to that letter, the petitioner visited Sevres, and on one or two later occasions visited Ibenoff's home together with her husband and children. According to her, Ibenoff's sect appeared to be a philosophical sect. Her husband also went to meetings of the sect, and at no time did he say to her that it was a sect of madmen, and that contact with members should be avoided. The petitioner knows that Ibenoff was sentenced in 1948 to four years' imprisonment for offences of inciting children to acts of indecency and immorality. She had indeed been impressed, at first, by the theories of Ibenoff, the central theme of which was the bringing closer together of the spirit of the East to the spirit of the West, but when she saw that his acts bore no relation to his preaching, she became confused. When she heard of the charges against Ibenoff, she said to one of her acquaintances that she was about to lose a good friend who had guided her with his advice. But the case affected her relationship with Ibenoff and his sect. She had taken an intellectual interest in the sect, and now all that was over for her. She had discovered that his ideas are also to be found in another philosophy, in a less complex form. The petitioner denied in her evidence any connection between the Ibenoff affair and her divorce petition. In reply to the respondent's contention that she is not capable, mentally or emotionally, of looking after the children, the petitioner testified that at the time of her studies she interested herself in the humanities, French literature, Latin, Greek and philology in general. She holds the degree of licencie (agrege) es. letters. At the secondary school in Paris she serves in the dual capacity of French teacher and secretary to the management. The number of pupils at the school is 1,100, between the ages of 11 and 19. There are at least eighty teachers engaged in teaching there; there is an assistant mistress in the school who deals with medico-social problems, and the petitioner has to examine all the social cases and the question of giving scholarships, which calls for the examination of the cases and of the family background of the pupils. As for the children's state of mind, she testified that from time to time, when the children returned from their visits to their father, they related to her what the father had said about her, and were very irritable and upset. The father gave evidence, inter alia, that he received no official notice of the decree of divorce of June 2, 1949. He saw an unconfirmed summary of the divorce decree in July, 1949, in his lawyer's file, and it may be that the decree was also delivered to tile latter. He presumes that an appeal was lodged on September 7, 1949; on September 14 he left France. He has not received to this day any news of the lodging of the appeal. He was present with his wife at the time of the first "reconciliation" hearing on April 14, 1948. In the first "no-reconciliation" order, the custody of the children was provisionally granted to his wife, and he was given access to them once a fortnight. On July 16, 1948, a second hearing took place for the purpose of reconciliation. Then, too, he was present with his wife. The existing order regarding the custody of the children was confirmed. He appealed against both the orders relating to the right to the children's custody. The appeal was heard on February 17, 1949, and he did not succeed in his appeal. On March 28, 1949, he filed a petition with the court known as référés, asked that they return his children to him, and set out his grounds for the petition. As a result of that petition, the court appointed a lawyer to examine the children's condition. According to the witness, the lawyer did not carry out his task properly. Instead of visiting the children at their place of residence with the petitioner's father, they were brought to the lawyer's offices, and the latter stated in his report that the children were in a normal state of health, and that they were being well looked after. The father knew that he had to return the children to their another on October 2, 1949, but, he states, he took them with him in order to save them. He has never said that his wife was out of her mind, but said that she showed signs of mental instability. He is still of that opinion after hearing her in this court. According to him, he did not live specifically in accordance with Jewish tradition, but he has been a Zionist for some time and his family is Zionist. He holds a number of invitations to Zionist meetings from the year 1947. He was a member of the Zionist Doctors' Association in Paris. There are three main legal questions which arise from the petition under consideration. (a) If the petitioner should have filed an action in the district court for custody of the children, is she nevertheless entitled to apply to this court for a. writ in the nature of habeas corpus? (b) If a petition for habeas corpus is a proper remedy, will this court recognise the decisions of the court in France, which granted the petitioner the custody of her children, as a basis for its decision on such a petition? This second question gives rise to two subsidiary questions:- (1) Does the fact that the French decree of divorce is still subject to appeal affect the petitioner's present right to the custody of her children? (2) Does the fact that the couple are not as yet divorced according to Jewish law prevent or delay the recognition of the decisions of the court in France relating to the right of custody? (c) If the answer to the last question is in the negative, does the rule that the benefit of the children is the real test justify this court in the present case in altering the decisions of the court in France regarding the right to the custody of the children? The first of these three questions is one of the jurisdiction of this court in the hierarchy of courts in Israel. The father's counsel, Mr. Michaeli, argued that the matter in question is not in the nature of habeas corpus, which is included within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice by section 7(a) of the Courts Ordinance, but is a case between parents over the right to the custody of the children, and is therefore one of the matters of personal status of foreigners and within the jurisdiction of the District Court (Article 64 and Article 51 of the Palestine Order in Council, 1922). On the other hand, the petitioner's counsel, Dr. Stoyanovsky, emphasized at the outset of his argument what he is not asking of this court. He stated that he is not asking for execution of the divorce decree granted by the Tribunal in Paris on June 2, 1949, or of the order made by the same court on December 12, 1949. He is not, moreover, asking for guardianship of the children for the mother. He is not even claiming the right to custody of the children, for he says that the mother is legally entitled to the custody of the children by virtue of the judgment and the orders made in France in favour of the mother. He is no longer in need of a determination of the right of custody in favour of the mother by this court. His application is for recovery of the custody and possession of the children of which the father has deprived the mother in an unlawful manner, and accordingly the children are in the unlawful custody of the father. For that reason, he contends, the matter falls within the scope of section 7 of the Courts Ordinance and the jurisdiction of the High Court. Before I consider the authorities, let me examine the two provisions of the law on which each one of the opposing parties relies. The definition of matters of personal status in Article 51 of the Order in Council speaks of "suits regarding marriage or divorce. . . guardianship" and others. Section 7(a) of the Courts Ordinance, which provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice, speaks of "Applications (in nature of habeas corpus proceedings) for orders of release of persons unlawfully detained in custody." In the present case, the divorce proceedings have already taken place in France, and it has been decided in favour of the petitioner that she is entitled to the custody of the children. There is no disputing the fact that the respondent took the children into his custody in breach of what was decided by the courts in France and brought them to Israel. Indeed, he contends that there were grounds and reasons for his doing so. But the fact remains that he is the one who had defied the courts in France. Counsel for the mother once more emphasizes that she is not asking for her right to the custody of the children to be determined. That right has been determined for her abroad, and therefore there is no case here in a matter of personal status. In bringing her petition in the nature of habeas corpus before this court, she relied on decisions made in her favour abroad in order to found her contention, which is the basis of her petition, that the children are in the hands of the father in unlawful custody, and therefore she claims their release. I do not hesitate to say that this contention seems to me to be sound. To start with, I shall consider the question as if the decisions in the mother's favour had been made here in Israel. The question as to what is the binding force of decisions made abroad (the second of the three questions above mentioned) is a problem of private international law, which I shall consider later. In order to make absolutely plain the question of jurisdiction and the definition of the border-line between a claim for custody and a petition for habeas corpus, it would be better to regard the matter separately from any problem of private international law. In this respect, the two parties were right in citing as authorities on the question of jurisdiction the judgments of the Supreme Court (during the period of the Mandate) which were delivered in cases in which no question arose as to the effect of a foreign judgment in this country, for the question of jurisdiction and the definition of the border-line between a case concerning the right to custody and a petition for habeas corpus is a question that arises, as I have already mentioned, from the provisions relating to the jurisdiction of the different courts in Israel. Counsel for the respondent cites as authority Silverman v. Buxenbaum and others (1). The truth of the matter is that that authority is not on all fours with the present case. That judgment contains only a few lines, and one gathers that the case concerned a family dispute which broke out over the question whether a child that was staying with relatives of his deceased mother should remain with them in accordance with his mother's will, as it was alleged, or should return to his father, and the father filed a, petition for habeas corpus. No judgment had been given in that matter before it came before the High Court. During the course of the hearing, the father undertook "to apply to the appropriate court to have these matters settled", and all that the court decided was that the child would remain with the mother's relatives until a decision was given on the part of the competent court. It is difficult to see how counsel for the respondent can rely on that judgment. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner cited in support of the jurisdiction of this court authority from the following two judgments : Flint v. Jones and another (2); Bar-Emun v. Bar-Emun (3). The first judgment, Flint v. Jones (9), was delivered in a case based on a petition of habeas corpus. The petitioner, the father, demanded the handing-over to himself of his son from his divorced mother and her second husband. The petition was founded on a judgment of the Principal Rabbinical Court of Jaffa and Tel Aviv, according to which the custody of the child had been given to the mother until he reached seven years of age, and thereafter to his father. The mother, apparently, refused to obey the judgment of the Rabbinical Court, although at first the child had been handed over to the father but had been taken away from school after that by the mother's second husband without the knowledge of the father. The court acceded to the father's petition, issued an order nisi in the nature of habeas corpus against the mother and her second husband and, in the absence of an affidavit by the respondents, made it absolute. In the second case, Bar-Emun v. Bar-Emun (8), the petitioner (the mother) obtained a judgment of the Rabbinical Court against her husband, and this ordered the child to be delivered to the mother, but the Execution Office refused to execute the judgment, on the ground that the child was in the hands of her father-in-law, and the latter had not been a party to the case. Later, the mother sought the execution of a second judgment of the Rabbinical Court, which had been given in the absence of the father-in-law, for the delivery of the child to her. The Chief Execution Officer refused to execute that judgment also, since the child's grandfather had never consented to the jurisdiction of the Rabbinical Court, whereupon the mother applied to the High Court of Justice on a petition of habeas corpus, and won her case. The common denominator in the two cases - Clint 6. Jones (2), and Bar-Emun v. Bar-Emun (3) - is that the right to the custody of the children had been considered and determined by a competent court before the matter came before the High Court, and this court, relying in each case upon the decision previously given by such competent court, issued the order of habeas corpus. Admittedly, neither of those two judgments is of much value in deciding the problem that we are considering, for the first one was given without any reply on the part of the respondent, and neither of them defined the borderline between a case based on the right to custody and a petition for habeas corpus. But the judgments were given on the assumption that habeas corpus is the remedy wherever it is preceded by a decision of a competent court as regards the right of custody. That assumption is, indeed, correct. The rule may be expressed in this manner : so long as the right to the custody of the child has not yet been determined by the competent court, and the very right itself is the subject of a bona fide dispute, this right can only be determined by the court. A claim of this kind is a matter of personal status which, in accordance with Articles 47, 51-54, and 64 of the Palestine Order in Council, 1922, is within the jurisdiction of the District Court both as regards Israel nationals and as regards foreigners or, under certain conditions, is within the jurisdiction of the religious courts. Where the right has been determined by a competent court in favour of one of the parents, and the parent acts in breach thereof, and takes the child out of its lawful custody or continues to detain it unlawfully, then the remedy is the filing of a petition in the nature of habeas corpus. If it be said that a petition to take a child out of the hands of a person unlawfully detaining it is indeed a form of petition of habeas corpus, because you are demanding to put an end to the detention, but that the demand to deliver the child to whomsoever is entitled to possession of it is a claim to the right of custody, the judgment in Queen v. Clarke (5), decided in 1857, shows us that the two demands cannot be separated, for they are linked to one another. In that judgment, Lord Campbell C.J. said :- "The question then arises, whether a habeas corpus be the proper remedy for the guardian to recover the custody of the child, of which he has been improperly deprived. Certainly the great use of this writ, the boast of English jurisprudence, is to set at liberty any of the Queen's subjects unlawfully imprisoned; and, when an adult is brought up under a habeas corpus, and found to be unlawfully imprisoned, he is to have his unfettered choice to go where he pleases. But, with respect to a child under guardianship for nurture, the child is supposed to be unlawfully imprisoned ashen unlawfully detained from the custody of the guardian; and when delivered to him he child is supposed to be set at liberty." The rule is thus summed up in Halsbury, Hailsham Edition, Vol. 9, page 717, article 1219:- "A parent, guardian, or other person who is legally entitled to the custody of a child can regain such custody when wrongfully deprived of it by means of the writ of habeas corpus. The unlawful detention of a child from the person who is legally entitled to its custody is, for the purpose of the issue of the writ, regarded as equivalent to an unlawful imprisonment of the child." (Compare also, Halsbury, Vol. 17, p. 666, article1383.) As is well known, the institution of Habeas corpus is likewise one of the corner-stones of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore it may be worth mentioning that there, too, it serves as an appropriate remedy for carrying into effect a decision which has been given on the question of the right to custody of the children in a previous divorce case. See the Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 89, Title "Habeas Corpus", section 46, p. 586, and the judgment of the United States Supreme Court of the 3lst March, 1947, in the case of Halvey v. Halvey (9). As regards the value of American judgments on questions of the kind under discussion here, see Dicey, Conflict of Laws, 6th Edition, pp. 10, 11 (note 16). I have dwelt at some length on the first question although I have no doubt as to the true position. A number of cases have recently come before this court in the form of habeas corpus in matters concerning the right to the custody of children, and this is the first case in which we have been called upon to give judgment upon it : and I hope that my expanding on the subject here at some length will enable future cases to be dealt with more briefly. The second question that arises here is, what is the force of the judgments and orders made in France in relation to the courts of our country? Must this court recognize those decisions as a basis for its decision in the case under consideration? That is, as stated, a problem of private international law. Authority for that may be found in Abyad v. Ancona (4), in which the Supreme Court confirmed what had been decided in the Haifa District Court by Evans, R.P., in these words:- "The defendant argues that the Order in Bankruptcy made in Egypt must come within the Ordinance Cap. 75 or else is of no effect. Similarly he argues that all international law is founded in treaties and that before the Courts could give any effect to this order there must be some agreement or treaty on the matter between the Palestine and Egyptian Governments. We do not agree with either proposition. It is true that agreements have been made regarding reciprocal enforcement of judgments, but these are largely matters of procedure. The Courts had to consider the weight and effect to be attached to foreign judgments long before. The Defendant says we are not bound by what is called Private International Law. We think we are. Those Rules (i.e. the rules of private international law) enforced in the English Courts are part of the English Law to which we must have recourse in the absence, as admittedly here, of any local provisions on the matter in question. Rules 124 and 125 of Dicey's Conflict of Laws show clearly that an order, such as that of the Egyptian Court... would be effective in England... and must therefore be treated as effective here for the same purpose." Now let us examine the English rules of private international law in this field as applied to the present case. A first general principle is to be found in Dicey's book on the Conflict of Laws (6th Edition, 1949, p. 11) :- "Any right which has been acquired under the law of any civilised country which is applicable according to the English rules of the conflict of laws is recognised and, in general, enforced by English courts, and no right which has not been acquired in virtue of an English rule of the conflict of laws is enforced or, in general, recognised by English courts." In explanation of that rule, it is stated there (p. 11) :- "Their object and result is to render effective in one country, e.g., England, rights acquired in every other civilised country, e.g., France or Italy, the law of which (of France or of Italy) is applicable according to the English rules of the conflict of laws." That is the general rule; and what are the particular rules touching the present case ? Rule 71 in Dicey's book (p. 868) says: - "The Courts of a foreign country have jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage of any parties domiciled in such foreign country at the commencement of the proceedings for divorce. This Rule applies to - (1) an English marriage; (2) a foreign marriage." Rule 83 (p. 400):- "Any foreign judgment is presumed to be a valid foreign judgment unless and until it is shown to be invalid. " Rule 84 (p. 401):- "A valid foreign judgment is conclusive as to any matter thereby adjudicated upon, and cannot be impeached for any error either)(1) of fact; or (2) of law " Rule 93 (p. 430):- "A valid foreign judgment... of divorce... has in England the same effect as a decree of divorce...granted by the Court in England, as regards the status of the parties to the marriage which is dissolved..." As to the particular item in the matter under consideration, the right to the custody of the children, an incidental remedy generally given in a divorce case, the following is to be found in the commentary in Dicey to Rule 71, p. 878 :- "There is also a lack of ad hoc authority as to the extent to which English Courts will recognise the power of foreign Courts to exercise control in matters of the property and parental rights of the persons whose marriage is affected by their decrees similar to that exercised by English Courts when granting ancillary relief in matrimonial causes. But the principle that similar authority should be conceded to foreign Courts is implicit in the cases which decide that the ancillary decrees of foreign Courts will not be recognised if the principal decree cannot be recognised in England." In illustration 5 (ibid., p. 878) :- "H and W are divorced by a Court in France, where they are domiciled, and the custody of the child is given to the father. W takes the child to England. He claims the custody of the child, and is entitled to the aid of the English Courts, which will, however, have regard to the welfare of the child." In the commentary to the aforementioned Rule 93 (ibid., p. 431) :- "Subject to the paramount consideration of the welfare of the children, effect would presumably be given in England to a foreign decree dealing with custody of children in connection with matrimonial questions, as a similar power belongs to English Courts." As authority for that, the judgment in Radoyevitch v. Radoyevitch (6), is cited (note 64). The considerable importance attached to that judgment for the problem with which we are dealing immediately becomes apparent, and so I propose to quote at length from the judgment of Lord President Clyde:- "The petitioner was at the date of his marriage to the respondent and is still a domiciled Jugoslavian, resident in Belgrade. The respondent was at the date of the marriage a Scotswoman, and the marriage took place in 1921 in London. The parties lived together in Belgrade until after the birth of their only child, a daughter, in 1922. Thereafter the respondent, taking the child with her, came back to this country, where she and the child have since remained. In 1928 the petitioner raised an action before the Spiritual Court of the Archbishopric of Belgrade against the respondent for divorce on the ground of desertion, and for custody of the child of the marriage... the Spiritual Court granted decree of divorce, and ordered the child to be delivered to the petitioner... The Supreme Spiritual Court (in Jugoslavia) approved of it subject to certain modifications, one of which was to give the respondent right of access... The respondent refuses to obtemper the order of the Spiritual Courts, and the present petition is brought in order to invoke the aid of this Court (in Scotland) in making it effective. "The important point in the case is raised by...the respondent's contention... namely, 'that, it being highly prejudicial to the health, welfare, and interests of the child that her custody should be awarded to the petitioner, the petition should be refused.' It will be - observed that this contention assumes that the question of awarding the custody of the child to one or other of the parties is an open question in this Court, notwithstanding the foreign judgment; and the assumption may be at first sight warranted by the fact that the prayer of the petition includes a crave that the petitioner should be found entitled to the custody. But, as appears from the averments in the petition, the petitioner's real case is that the foreign judgment already entitles him to the custody; and therefore any finding of the kind prayed for can only refer to a finding that the petitioner is - in respect of the foreign judgment - so entitled. Nevertheless, the respondent argued that the circumstances alleged by her provide sufficient grounds on which this Court should refuse its aid in making the foreign judgment effective. The petitioner's answer was two-fold; he maintained that this Court has no jurisdiction to review or alter what has been judicially done by the competent Court of the domicile, but is bound to give effect to its judgment. ...It is to be observed that... none of the allegations made by the respondent... relate to circumstances which were not extant and fully known to the respondent prior to the proceedings in Belgrade, and therefore pleadable by her - quantum valuerint- in those proceedings. It is also to be observed that there is nothing in the proceedings before the foreign Court, as far as appears from the pleadings in the present petition or from the documents before us, which is inconsistent with our Scottish notions of substantial justice. "The unlimited scope attributed in Administrator of Austrian Property v. Von Lorang, (1997) A.C. 641, to the doctrine of the universally binding effect of foreign judgments in rens goes to support the petitioner's argument. The custody of a child, like its tutory (which may or may not include the right of custody), is clearly a question of status; and proceedings for the disposal or regulation of the custody must therefore be regarded as proceedings in rens. The foreign judgment was pronounced in an undefended action, and was thus a decree in absence, although preceded by inquiry. In a case not dealing with status this might perhaps be enough to prevent the judgment from being res judicata between the petitioner and the respondent...; but the specialty of a foreign judgment in rem is that, so long as it is pronounced by the competent Court of the domicile, it is binding (alike as between the parties themselves and in questions with third parties) upon the Courts of this country without further inquiry. Accordingly, the petitioner's argument is that the status rights of the parents to the custody of the child of their marriage (which status rights constitute the res) have been conclusively adjudicated upon by the competent court of their foreign domicile that is, of the husband's domicile, which is also the domicile of the child - and that this Court is precluded from inquiring into any of the matters with which the respondent's answers are concerned. The fact that the child is for the time being resident in this country and within the jurisdiction of this Court has no importance, according to the petitioner's argument, except as calling for the aid of this Court in giving executive effect to a judgment which is conclusively binding upon it. "But, after all, an appeal to this Court for that purpose is an appeal to its jurisdiction for aid in carrying out the foreign judgment, and necessarily assumes that the jurisdiction can be legitimately used for that purpose, in some way or other, over both the respondent and the child, notwithstanding that both the child in particular - are of foreign domicile. The assumption is of course well founded. In the case of Stuart v. Moore (9 H.L.C. 439; 11 E.R. 799), (in which the guardians in England claimed the handing over of an infant who was in Scotland) Lord Chancellor Campbell said this :- 'The Court of Session had undoubted jurisdiction over the case. By their nobile officiunt conferred upon them by their Sovereign as parens patriae it is their duty to take care of all infants who require their protection, whether domiciled in Scotland or not. But I venture to repeat what I laid down for law in this House near twenty years ago, 'that the benefit of the infant is the foundation of the jurisdiction, and the test of its proper exercise'." "In considering the benefit of the child, it must be kept in mind that neither in such a case as Stuart v. Moore, nor in the present case, are we concerned with any question about the choice between two claimants or candidates for the child's tutory or custody. There is already a tutor or custodier duly appointed by the Court of the foreign domicile; and the benefit of the child is relevant only to the question whether we should lend our aid by ordering delivery of the child to that tutor or custodier". Lord Sands, concurring in the judgment of the Lord President, said :- "The question before us is whether this child falls to be handed over to the custody of her father in Belgrade, or to be allowed to remain with her mother in Scotland. We are bound to regard that question in the same impartial manner us would the Court of a third country - say France - if the child were found temporarily there, and a competition arose in a French Court between the father and the mother. When the matter is so regarded, I think the law is clear. "As your Lordship in the chair points out, this application is not in substance an application to us to determine a question of custody. It is an application to us to give effect to a judgment upon that matter which has already been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction." The Court of Session examined only the terms of transfer of the child from Scotland to Belgrade and the terms of her reception there in surroundings that were unfamiliar to her. After tile court had received satisfactory answers it decided that the mother should deliver her daughter to the petitioner. I have quoted that Scottish judgment in detail, because it is the only one which deals exactly with the question before us in this case, and both in the actual facts and in the arguments, there is great similarity between the two cases. In the same way that counsel for the petitioner repeatedly emphasized before us that he is not asking us to determine the mother's right to the custody of her children, but for the recovery of the custody established in her favour by a competent foreign court, so that approach is prominent also in the Radoyevitch case (6) and was accepted there. As for private international law, the principle was unhesitatingly established in that judgment, that a foreign judgment, which determines incidentally to a divorce the right of one of the parents to the custody of the children, will be recognised. The importance of that judgment is the emphasis therein that the decision concerning the right to custody of children is in the nature of a decision in rem, with all the wide implications inherent in such a decision, binding as it does the whole world. We shall have no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion, on the basis of the rules that we have quoted from Dicey's book and of what we have quoted from the judgment in Radoyevitch (6), that we must recognise the decisions of the French Court that determined the right to the custody of the children in favour of the mother, the petitioner. There is no disputing the fact that the court in France was the competent court to try and to decide the question of the divorce between the parties. The father was present at the trial, and was represented by a lawyer. His argument that, since he was no longer in France when the court delivered its further decision of December 12, 1949, the court had no jurisdiction to make it, is an absurd argument. Here is a father who has flouted and defied the court's decision and has smuggled the children away from their mother, and yet argues that he was tried in his absence. In fact, the petitioner was entitled to found her petition to us on the main divorce decree which was granted on June 2, 1949, and which gave her the right to the custody of her children. The respondent had no real argument to raise against the content of the decree and the decisions that came after it, and, furthermore, could hardly have done so, seeing that according to the rules that we quoted above, there can be no appeal here against a foreign judgment, which is presumed to be extant and effective, on account of an error in the facts or the law. In so holding, it must be said at the same time, that the respondent did not succeed in showing us any error whatsoever in the law or on the facts in the proceedings in France. Counsel for the respondent tried indeed to argue even before us that, in any event, we should not recognise the decisions made in France on two grounds : (a) because the divorce decree is still appealable, and the rule is that foreign judgments are recognised only when they are final; (b) this court, he contends, will not regard the divorce decree as binding so long as the husband and wife have not become divorced by a religious divorce according to Jewish law, and if the actual divorce itself cannot be recognised, then the incidental decisions of the question of the right of custody cannot be recognised. Both arguments are untenable. Admittedly, it is right that, according to the rules of private international law, a foreign judgment is recognised only when it is final and conclusive. As regards a judgment in personam, the matter is covered by Rule 86 (see p. 403 in Dicey's Conflict of Laws). Moreover, as regards a decree of divorce, the question of "finality" is mentioned in the commentary to Rule 93 (p. 431). But in the same place, in Rule 86, it is laid down that a foreign judgment can be final and conclusive even when it is subject to appeal and notwithstanding that an appeal against it is pending abroad where it was given. (Compare also Martin Wolff, Private International Law, paragraph 242, p. 266.) In fact, the opposite view for which counsel for the respondent contended before us would put at nought the intention of the foreign court. For the French court held, even before it gave its judgment on the actual divorce, in its previous decisions, where the father himself gave evidence, that the mother was entitled to the custody of the children; and the judgment of June 2, 1949, it held that the orders concerning the handing over of the custody of the children to the mother were to be executed for the time being, notwithstanding any appeal and without giving security. It is clear that the intention of the court there was not to retract from the weight of its decision by the use of the word "provisoire", and to say that the handing-over of the right of custody was only for the time being. On the contrary, it regarded as urgent the arrangement of the right of custody in favour of the mother, and so, as can be seen from the insertion of the words "notwithstanding any appeal and without giving security", it provided for the immediate execution of its orders concerning the right of custody. As for the second argument concerning the absence of a religious divorce according to Jewish law, counsel for the petitioner was right in saying that we are not dealing with the question of the possibility of a second marriage on his part or on hers. It is clear that, according to Jewish law, such second marriage is forbidden, in spite of the civil divorce, unless preceded by a religious divorce. But, as stated, that question does not arise here. We are here dealing with the question of the effect of the decisions in France relating to the right of custody. The divorce decree, as a civil divorce, is effective according to French law, which applies to the parties according to Israel law (Article 64 of the Order in Council, 1922)1), and therefore the same part dealing with the right to the custody of the children is also effective. (Incidentally, the question of the right to the custody of the children can also arise, according to Jewish law, even while the marriage still subsists though the parents are separated.) . The result is that neither the appeal lodged in France nor the absence of a religious divorce, will entitle us to defer the recognition of the decisions made in France concerning the right to the custody of the children. That brings us to the last point, and that is whether the benefit of the children requires us to alter the decision of the French court. It is agreed that the established rule, and the one which most appeals to the intelligence, is that the benefit of the children must be decisive in exercising judicial discretion, even in cases of habeas corpus. But what are the factors to be taken into account in such judicial discretion? The opinion of the children themselves as to whom they want to go to cannot be sought when they are of such a tender age as are the children in the present case, in particular in habeas corpus proceedings. If authority is required for that, it may be found in the above-mentioned judgment of Queen v. Clarke (5), and in Eversley on Domestic Relations, (pp. 418-423). The parents' opinions are completely at variance. The father contends that the children are depressed when they return from a visit to the mother, and the mother contends that they are irritable when they return from their visit to the father. Their views, therefore, are of no assistance. Even taking into account the requirement of the benefit of the children, the court will not readily alter the decision of the court abroad concerning the right of custody. It is clear that each case has to be considered according to its special nature, and no hard and fast rule can be laid down here. But it may generally be assumed that before the court abroad there were more data to assist in weighing the matter than before the tribunal which is called upon afterwards in another country to recognise the former judgment. There is also special significance in the length of time that has elapsed between the decision of the original court and the decision required from the court in the other country on the strength of the judgment given abroad. In the present case, the court in France, before which all the data were available, including an examination of the state of the children, decided a short while ago in favour of the mother. What in essence did the father contend before us in order to move us to alter the decision of the court in France regarding the custody of the children? Mainly the Ibenoff affair, that I mentioned in some detail in setting out the facts. I assume that for a certain period, the mother (petitioner) was influenced by that person and his opinions, until he turned out to be a criminal. But there is no ground for not believing her, that since then, the man and his system mean nothing to her. There is no foundation for assuming, on the basis of what we heard in evidence from the two parties, that that affair influenced or will influence in any way her capacity as educator of her children. Furthermore, there is no argument here that the husband could not have put forward in the French court, and now he comes before us and claims a new factor in deciding the question of the custody of the children. We know from his evidence and from the divorce decree that the respondent certainly argued the matter of Ibenoff, and not only did the court not accept his argument, but viewed the very fact of his making allegations against his wife arising out of the Ibenoff affair as a serious insult and a grave reflection on her, and as a sufficient ground for divorce. If the French court, which was so close to the "atmosphere", held thus, are we here going to differ from it on that point? He further argued, that his wife lacks the necessary mental stability, and therefore her influence is harmful to the children. That argument, too, was submitted to the French court at various stages in the proceedings, was heard and rejected outright. Now the petitioner has given evidence before us, was examined by counsel for the respondent, and by her own counsel. Her replies were completely balanced and she gave the impression of a restrained person, despite the difficulties she has been through. We have heard about her position in the secondary school in Paris in which there are 1100 children. There, she is not only a teacher, but also assistant to the Board of Directors in dealing with medico-social questions. We have no reason for dismissing the petitioner as not being a satisfactory mother and educator, or for departing for that reason from the decisions of the court in France. Lastly, the respondent father appealed to this court saying that the custody and education of the children should be committed into his hands, contrary to what was decided in France, in view of the fact that he wishes to give them here a national-Jewish upbringing that they cannot receive in France. His counsel added that the rule of public policy calls for such a decision by us. I have the feeling that there is a lack of sincerity in the father's statements in this connection. We have not heard that before the divorce he objected to the method of education given to the children in the school in France, or that he did anything in order to give his children a Hebrew or Jewish education. According to the evidence before us, it is to be assumed that if there remained a spark of Jewish tradition in the Amado family, that spark was rather to be found in the mother's family. The suspicion which the husband projected into the atmosphere of the court, that the mother was likely to convert the children to another religion, was rejected by the mother with disgust, and I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of her words. As for public policy, this court and every judge in Israel would obviously be pleased if every Jewish child that immigrates into the country were to receive his education in Israel. But this is not the way to encourage the immigration of Jews to the Land of Israel. Heaven forbid that we should turn our country into a refuge for people who, during the course of quarrels in their married lives, smuggle their children away in contravention of the law and of justice. That way brings no blessing either to the country or to the children. My conclusion is that, from the point of view of the benefit of the children also, there is no ground for altering the decision of the court in France which gave the mother the right to the custody of her children. Accordingly, the order nisi should be made absolute as against the second respondent. DUNKELBLUM J.: I agree with the judgment of the learned President, and with its reasoning and conclusions. AGRANAT J.: I concur in the opinion of the learned President both as to the result at which he arrived and as to the grounds upon which he relied. CHESHIN J.: I concur without hesitation in the learned President's opinion, insofar as it relates to the first two questions raised in his judgment, namely, that the matter in question was rightly brought by way of petition in the nature of "habeas corpus", and that in the light of the principles of private international law, this court is required to regard the decision of the French court, which entitled the mother to the custody of the children, us the basis for its own decision. The third question however - and it is, in the opinion of all the authorities, the decisive question - namely, whether the benefit of the children requires that that decision be maintained or altered - this question, I must confess, gave me much ground for thought both while the parties and their counsel argued their case before us and when examining the great and varied mass of authorities which were brought to our attention. which the learned President dwelt at some length in his judgment, the father demanded, on the strength of a Jugoslav judgment, to have their eight-year-old daughter, born to them in Jugoslavia and taken by the wife to Scotland when she was a few months old, removed from the custody of his wife and handed over to him. Lord Sands, one of the three judges who composed the court, asked himself the question in this form : is the Scottish court bound to commit the child into her father's custody in Belgrade, or to permit her to remain with her mother in Scotland? The learned judge came to the conclusion that the court should examine the matter from an objective point of view, in the way that, say, a French court might have done, if the child had found her way temporarily to France and her father and mother were carrying on a legal battle in the same court over the right to have the child with them. "When the matter is so regarded," concludes Lord Sands, "I think the law is clear." The Lord President of the Court of Session, Lord Clyde, says in the same case :- "It is quite impossible for us to make up our minds on the balance of advantages and disadvantages ...attendant on Jugoslavian or on Scottish nationality, or on the social or educational associations of either country, and I do not conceive that such a balance could be reasonably or fairly applied to the problem of the child's welfare, even if we thought ourselves able to make it." (p. 627). I dare to express a doubt whether those considerations that were in the mind of the Scottish court, and those only, must be in our minds when we come to deal with a problem of the kind that arises in the present case. An Israel court, in determining the fate of a Jewish child within its jurisdiction, is not entitled to ignore the special position of the Jewish people or of the individual Jew among the nations of the world, and to say to itself, in the words of Lord Clyde, or by way of the illustration that Lord Sands brought : "Let us assume that we are sitting as an English Court in England or an American Court in America." This court and its members are not sitting in vacuo, cut off from reality and from the people among whom they work and create, sharing their ambitions, experiences and desires, and they are not always required to confine themselves within the four corners of a rule and to see everything from the aspect of the letter of the law applicable in other countries. In this respect, one might say that Israel is not like all other nations, and a Jugoslav child whose Scottish mother has brought him with her from Belgrade to Scotland is not the same us a Jewish child whose Jewish father has brought him to Israel from the lands of the Diaspora. The vast majority of the Scottish people resides in its own homeland, and the dangers of becoming assimilated and vanishing do not face them. In the last war, it was not bereaved of a third of its people on account of their being Scottish, and the people of Scotland living in other parts of the world are not subject to perpetual persecution and discrimination on account of their race, and the stock from which they spring. The same applies to the English, to Americans and to Jugoslavs. The Israel nation, alone of all the nations, during all the long years of its exile and through all the lands of the dispersion, almost without exception, has been wantonly persecuted for its religion, its race, its customs, its culture. Whole communities of Jews have been condemned to physical and spiritual destruction and have been utterly destroyed, and others are fighting a desperate struggle for their religion, their culture and their very existence. So well known is it that it requires no proof, that millions of our brethren, among them children of tender years, and youngsters who had hardly left their nurseries and whose parents had at one time taken them with them from the Land of Israel and brought them to the lands of the Diaspora, have been wiped out in our days and before our very eyes and the eyes of the whole world, by one of the "advanced" nations of civilisation, thinking up methods of killing which the Devil himself could scarcely have conceived, contrary to the law of nations and humanity. Can a court in Israel forget this story of annihilation, when it comes to consider the question of removing one of its children from Israel? And are we required to shut our eyes to the reestablishment of Israel in its own land, and the consequences involved for every Jew because of his being a Jew in the achievement of the hope of generations for the return of its people to its own country? The ingathering of the exiles is not just an empty phrase, and each one of us here today, and each one who is not with us today, is fully and clearly cognisant of the fact, that every Jew who immigrates to Israel aids not only the restoration of the nation and the building of the land, but also ensures his own security and future and the security and future of his children and family. A child from Israel who becomes rooted in the land of his forefathers has been freed from the dangers of assimilation and annihilation. The benefit and security of the children whose fate this court has been called upon to settle have to be seen in the light of these and similar considerations. Furthermore, in the case of Radoyevitch (6), the Scottish mother objected to the handing over of her daughter to the Jugoslav father, and gave her reasons for so doing in a long series of arguments and replies; but it was apparent there - and the Lord President, Clyde, comments thereon - that none of the mother's arguments were new, and that she could have submitted them to the Spiritual Court in Jugoslavia before the latter decided on the matter of the right of custody. She did not do so, and was therefore out of time. That, however, is not the position in the present case. Here there has been a change, an enormous change, since the day on which the French court gave its judgment. The father has opened a new chapter in his life. He has decided to settle among his own people, and to bring his children up in the spirit of Israel. I was not particularly impressed with the argument of counsel for the mother, that the father immigrated to Israel because he had kidnapped his children from their mother's home, and because he could find no other place to which to take them. The opposite is true : he took his children with him because he had made up his mind to abandon the life of exile and to live a Jewish life in his own land. It is true that he grew up and was educated in foreign surroundings, and that national values were not of particular importance to him, and that his children have been brought up in that spirit, too. But his intentions are not to be dismissed on account of his past. An enormous change of values has taken place in the outlook and inclinations of many Jews of the Diaspora since the last World War, and in particular after the establishment of the State of Israel. The fact is that he has immigrated to Israel and has brought his children with him. The fact is that, in court, he expressed his desire once more to live with his wife a normal family life, forgetting the past, should she desire to settle in Israel, but she persists in her refusal and she is content with life in the Diaspora. The fact is that, when the children were transferred to a hospital at the commencement of the Festival of Passover, he would not rest until he had succeeded in moving this court to order the children's transfer to a Jewish institution until after the Festival had ended. On the other hand, although she gave her consent to that transfer, the actual entering of the children into a non-Jewish institution was done at the mother's request, and she was not troubled by the fact that the children would be during the Festival and the intermediate days in non-Jewish surroundings. In those circumstances, I am prepared to believe the father when he declares on oath that "out of concern for the fate of the children and a desire to give them traditional Jewish lives... I decided to immigrate to Israel and to live here a quiet, Jewish life, to devote my life to bringing up my children and together with that to put my skill and knowledge in the science of medicine at my people's disposal." I weigh against that the personality of the petitioner - the mother - with her emotional tendencies, to the extent that they were revealed to us in these proceedings. I stated at the outset of my remarks that I am in full agreement with the learned President, that since the French court has committed into her hands the custody of the children, the right to custody is hers. But since the benefit of the children as at today is the true test which must apply, in view of the above stated considerations, me are not free to overlook any of the facts. The words of Lord Sands in the Radoyevitch case (6) are enlightening, when he declares in this connection :- "It is the duty of this Court to extend protection to every child found within its jurisdiction, and it may in certain cases be our duty to extend such protection even against a claim based upon a legal award of custody. The Court will not de plano in every case order delivery to the legal custodian." (p. 628). In other words, it is one thing to treat a judgment of a foreign court with the respect which is its due, and in certain cases also to recognise it, particularly in the light of the principles of private international law, it is quite another matter to consider the benefit of the child. The latter is settled according to the outlook and discretion of the judges who are called upon to determine it in each and every case according to its particular circumstances. There they are not tied to universal principles. You cannot draw an analogy in this type of case from the rules of private international law, nor will such rules be in any way affected even if the court does not uphold to the letter the judgment of the foreign court. From that point of view, considerable importance attaches to the character and capabilities of the mother, who demands for herself the upbringing of her children and the whole of their future. It must be mentioned at the outset that she gave me the impression of being a somewhat fanciful spirit, who has not yet found the way of life suitable to her. In her adolescent years, she engaged in the science of philosophy, and under the guidance of one of her teachers at the University, the Greek teacher, a near and enchanting world was opened before her in the theory of a certain Bulgarian named Michael Ibenoff. For a number of years she studied this theory, and even began to correspond, after her marriage, with Ibenoff, the creator of this theory. I did not succeed in understanding the niceties of this theory, but I heard from the petitioner that it discloses the ways of the East to the peoples of the West, that is to say, a sort of harmonious intermingling of the two differing worlds. While she is engaged in this study, Ibenoff invites her to his home, and somewhat surprisingly she becomes involved, at her very first meeting, in a conversation about her marriage to her husband. Afterwards, Ibenoff invites her - and she accepts his invitation to be present at a ceremony of "breathing exercises of the Yogi kind", "accompanied by beautiful Bulgarian songs", conducted at the first rays of dawn by men and women in the fields near the town of Sevres in France. We were given no explanation, and we do not know to this day, how this idolatry, carried on at an hour which is neither day nor night and when the whole world is fast asleep, is designed to bring the East closer to the West, but we do know that Ibenoff also founded a mystic sect, and that it was his wont to work up women and virgins from among the female followers of his sect into a frenzy, and to incite youngsters to acts of indecency and immorality. We further know that this Ibenoff, who was once given the name of the Bulgarian Rasputin by the French press, was finally caught red-handed and sentenced by a French court to four years' imprisonment. The petitioner served as a disciple to this charlatan, she participated several times in meetings of members of his mystic sect (according to her, together with her husband), and the petitioner was invited to send her children to the school that was about to be founded by the followers of that same sect. In this school, the petitioner explains and declares, it was proposed to introduce the theories of Ibenoff. When Ibenoff was put on trial, the petitioner was at a complete loss and said to one of her acquaintances, as she herself admits in her evidence : "I am utterly confused because I am about to lose a dear friend who has guided me with his advice and led me in the paths of life." In her evidence, she indeed declares that she has drawn away from Ibenoff's sect and today she no longer interests herself in it, "because it is possible to find it (that is, the philosophy of life that Ibenoff preached) in any other philosophy without complications", and she sends her children to a State school, of which by coincidence - or perhaps not by a coincidence - the headmistress, as teacher and principal, is a converted Jewess. The story of the petitioner's relations with Ibenoff and his mystic sect was indeed recounted to the French court, and from the fact that the children were eventually placed in the hands of the petitioner, it is plain that that court found nothing objectionable in her and her character; but the Ibenoff affair is not at an end, since the second respondent - the husband - has lodged an appeal against the judgment, and we do not know what will be the result of that appeal. However, more important than that is that there were not before the French court - nor could there be - the facts that came into existence, as stated, after the giving of the judgment; and it is all the more obvious that it did not take into account those considerations with which we are faced. That court regarded the children as it would regard French children, whereas we regard them as we would regard Israel children, whose father seeks to have them regarded as attached to the body of their resurrected nation. The revival of a nation in its land means the revival of every member of the House of Israel, and the benefit of an Israel child requires that he be formed in the likeness of his people, on the soil of his homeland, and that he should grow and be educated a free person among his brothers, the children of his people, without the marks of a bowed head and an inferiority complex so characteristic of the Jew in the Diaspora in his relations with the people among whom he lives, even though he be born there. From that point of view, that is, from the long-term and final point of view, I do not hesitate to express the opinion that the benefit of the children requires a decision that their place is here in Israel, amongst their people, and by the side of their father. We have, however, still not exhausted the problem, for there is another side to the coin which is no less important : that is the short-term aspect of the matter, the prosaic question as to what the children will eat today and what they will wear tomorrow. The petitioner, in her affidavit, speaks of herself as being a secondary school teacher in France, and earning enough for her own and her children's upkeep. Moreover, she says, her parents have supported her in the past, whenever the second respondent has refused to carry out his obligations towards his family. It seems that those parents are good Jews, and at least in their home they carry on the tradition and customs of Israel. The petitioner even mentioned in her evidence that her mother bad at the time objected to her grandchildren, the children of the petitioner and the second respondent, learning Christian religious studies in the school in which they were being educated, and this objection fell on willing ears so far as the petitioner was concerned. Those statements, whether in writing or made orally, were not denied by the second respondent. On the other hand, it appears that the material position of the second respondent is by no means bright. In his affidavit, he speaks of "prospects of getting settled in his profession in Israel" (paragraph 19), of prospects "of entering my children into a suitable educational institution or into Youth Aliya ...with the assistance of one of the social workers ...in Pardess Hanna" (paragraph 13). But all that is, at the very best, no more than a sort of good hope for the future, and it has not got beyond the stage of prospects. There is nothing positive. At the moment, the children are running around in an immigrants' camp, without supervision and without the presence of relatives which are so necessary to children of tender age (the girl is about seven and the boy about four-and-a-half), subject to the kindness of good people and living on a pittance. When the children became ill on the eve of Passover (and it turns out that their illness was not so dangerous), they had to be transferred to hospital, where they could receive the necessary treatment. We do not know what will happen to them tomorrow, or how the father proposes to supply his children with their most vital needs. At the moment, their sustenance is poor. They have no corner of their own, and even the roof above their heads is not permanent. In the Radoyetvitch case (6) also, in which the Court of Session held that, from the legal point of view, the father was entitled to have the child in his possession, the court was not in a hurry to hold in favour of the father, but demanded satisfactory guarantees to ensure that the child would take root in the land to which the father proposed to take her, taking into account her age, her sex and the fact that she had grown up without any knowledge of her country's language. In this respect, the words of the Lord President, Clyde, are enlightening. The learned judge puts it this way :- "We must in the first place, be fully informed of the petitioner's plans for taking delivery of the child and for its safe conduct to Belgrade, ...and we must be satisfied that he is at the present time in a position to carry those plans out. In the second place, we must be fully informed of the arrangements made by him for the proper reception in Belgrade (with a view to education and upbringing) of this girl of eight years of age, who when she first comes under his care) will be unable to communicate her needs or wishes to those around her, unless they have some knowledge of English. We must also be satisfied that he is at the present time in a position to carry out whatever arrangements for these purposes he may have made." If such is the position of a father, claiming his right on the decision of a court which has already decided in the matter, how much more so in the case of a father whose actual right is still in dispute. When I weigh that short-term view in my mind, it seems to me - and not without considerable hesitation - that despite the long-term view, and notwithstanding the father's good intentions, it would not be right to leave the children's fate hanging on a thread. For that reason, and that reason alone, I, too, think that the order should be made absolute. ASSAF J.: I concur with the learned President on the question of this court's jurisdiction to try the matter before us, brought by way of a petition in the nature of habeas corpus, and also on the question of giving recognition to the judgment of the court in France. In relation to the question whether the benefit of the children requires us to alter the decision of the French court, I admit to considerable hesitation and heartsearchings, similar to those which my learned colleague, Cheshin J., has discussed at some length, although I do not feel the same certainty that he has as to the sincerity of the respondent's statements in relation to the upbringing of the children - that he wants to educate them in a traditional Jewish spirit - seeing that they were made after domestic peace had been shattered, and strife had come in its stead. Further, from the evidence of the respondent in court, it is clear that he was not one of those people who maintain the Jewish tradition, and before the divorce case did not object to the method of education that the children received in France. In his affidavit, the respondent states that, in order that domestic peace be restored, he is prepared to forgive his wife her past offences and to live with her a normal family life, but the serious allegations he has made against her throw doubt on whether he feels the same way as he declares. Counsel for the respondent contended that, if the petitioner were to decide to remain in Israel and leave the children, who are still very young and in need of a mother's care, with her, he would have nothing left to argue; but since she does not propose to do so, and since she is still not divorced from her husband according to Jewish law, he relies on the express passage in the Mishnah 1) that "a man may compel all his household to go up with him to the Land of Israel, but none may be compelled to leave it" (Ketuboth, 110b; Shulhan Aruh, Even Ha'Ezer, 75), and accordingly a husband is entitled to demand of his wife that she, too, immigrate to the Land of Israel. But it seems to me that that rule cannot be relied upon in the present instance. It is obvious that the rule was intended for normal cases, where the husband and wife are living together in the customary way and in the manner of Jewish people, and the husband proposes to immigrate to the Land of Israel while the wife is opposed to immigration, on the ground that it involves the giving up of their established home, the ardours of travel and the liky, or out of lack of desire to leave their former place of residence, where her father's household, her relatives and friends live; but in the present case, where the couple are living separately as the result of a serious quarrel that has already lasted a number of years and where a divorce petition was filed more than two years ago, the better view is that a husband cannot demand that his wife leave her father and mother in the land of her birth and the place where she is earning her living and go after him to the Land of Israel, without being certain that she will lead there a happy life. That can only be done by way of request and compromise and not by compelling her to do so and deeming her a rebel for that reason alone, if she refuses. That being so, we return once more to the question of giving effect and recognition to the French court's decision as it stands, according to which the custody of the children has been accorded to the petitioner. After consideration I, too, agree with the opinion of the learned President and my other learned colleagues, that the former situation should be restored by making the order nisi absolute. SMOIRA P. Accordingly, we make the order nisi absolute as against the second respondent. In doing so, we express the hope that the petitioner will not enforce her legal rights to their full extent, but will see her way clear to make some arrangement which will enable the father to see his children from time to time. Order nisi made absolute against the second respondent. Judgement given on April 16, 1950.

C.App. 41/49

(C.A. 24/48)

 

SHIMSHON PALESTINE PORTLAND CEMENT FACTORY LTD.

v.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

 

 

In the Supreme Court sitting as a Court of Civil Appeal

[April 12, 1950]

Before: Dunkelblum J., Assaf J., and Agranat J.

 

 

International Law - State Succession - Succession to obligations - Municipal Law - Former sovereign party to litigation pending on change of sovereignty - Position of new sovereign - The Law of Israel.

 

                The applicant, a Company registered in Tel Aviv, formerly Palestine, now Israel, brought an action against the Government of Palestine for the return of the sum of 2539 Palestine Pounds customs drawback. On February 17, 1948, the Haifa District Court gave judgment in favour of the applicant. On March 17, 1948, the Attorney-General of the Government of Palestine entered an appeal against that judgment. This appeal was not heard. On May 15, 1948, the Mandate for Palestine terminated and the State of Israel came into existence. The present application, before the Israel Supreme Court, was for an order that the appeal should proceed between the Attorney-General of the Government of Israel as appellant and the applicant as respondent. Counsel for the applicant argued that the liability to pay the judgment debt had now passed to the Government of Israel, which came into existence on the termination of the Mandatory regime and thus took the place of the Mandatory Government "which has ceased to exist in the territory of the State of Israel", that the powers and functions of the Attorney-General of the Government of Palestine had passed to the Attorney-General of the Government of Israel, and therefore that the Attorney-General of the Government of Israel must take the place of the Attorney-General of the Government of Palestine. Alternatively, the applicant moved the Court to order such person as it thought fit to be joined in the action and to summon him to appeal as appellant, or, in the alternative, to make an order in the appropriate way for substituted service, so as to enable the respondent to bring the case to a conclusion.

 

                Held: that the action must fail. There was no substitution of the Government of Israel for the Government of Palestine. The action should be removed from the list of pending cases without prejudice and with liberty to apply.

           

English cases referred to:

(1)        Cook v. Sprigg (1899) A.C. 572.

(2)        West Rand Central Gold Mining Co. v. The King (1905)

(3)        Commercial and Estates Co. of Egypt v. The Board of Trade (1995) 1 K.B. 271.

(4)        The Cristina (1985) A.C. 485.

 

Decisions of International Tribunals referred to :-

(5)   Permanent Court of International Justice - Succession in Obligations (Fees paid in Error) Case A.D. 1925-6, Case No. 50.

(6)   Affair of the Ottoman public Debt - I Reports of International Arbitral Awards, p. 529; A.D. 1925-6, case No. 57.

 

Levitsky for the applicants.

Shimron, State Attorney, for the respondents.

 

DUNKELBLUM J   after stating the facts as set forth above, continued.  The first motion, for the submission of the -General of the Government of Israel for the attorney-General of the Government of Palestine, was based on the assumption, mentioned in the application, that the judgment debt due from the Government of Palestine had become the responsibility of the Government of Israel. Counsel for the Applicant based this argument on two main grounds :

 

(1) According to the Law and Administration Ordinance, 1948, the Government of Israel assumed responsibility for the payment of the debts of the Government of Palestine. In his view this is derived from section 15(a) of the said Ordinance according to which "whenever in any law the word 'Palestine' appears, the word 'Israel' shall be substituted", and from section 21, according to which the Government of Israel is entitled to collect taxes and other sums due to the Government of Palestine. If the Government collects taxes due to the Government of Palestine then it must also take upon itself its debts. By its behaviour, then, the Government of Israel is estopped from denying that it is the successor of the Government of Palestine and must therefore assume responsibility for the mischarge of that Government's obligations.

 

(2) According to international law the debts of the former Government have passed to the Government of Israel.

 

            In my opinion there is no reason for giving to section 15(a) of the Law and Administration Ordinance the interpretation which has been suggested on behalf of the applicant. Section 15 speaks only about the interpretation of laces, and lays down that, whenever in any law the word 'Palestine' appears, the word 'Israel' is to be substituted. That section does not deal at all with the interpretation of judgments. Neither does section 21 of the said Ordinance assist the applicant in any way. That section does not deals with the collection of taxes and other sums due to the Government of Palestine, and not with the discharge of its debts. It is possible, indeed, to derive from this section precisely the opposite of what the applicant argues. Since the State of Israel is not the successor of the former Government, there was need for specific legislation to entitle the Government to collect taxes and other sums due to the Government of Palestine. Were the Government of Israel the successor of the former Government there would be no need for such legislation.

           

            But it is enough if we say that so far-reaching an interpretation as that suggested by the applicant cannot be deduced by a mere process of interpreting the statute: it should be a specific provision of the statute. If the legislature had been desirous of imposing upon Israel responsibility for the debts of the Government of Palestine, it would have said this explicitly and unequivocally.

           

            In the second place, the applicant relies upon international law. In this connection two questions arise. The first is : In the absence of recognition by the proper authorities of the State of given rules of international law, are the municipal courts of that State entitled to reach a decision on the basis of those rules ? The second is: Is there any rule of international law which entitles the applicant to demand from the State of Israel payment of the debt, the subject matter of the case before us?

           

            Regarding the first question, the matter has been developed in a number of decisions rendered by the superior courts of England, and those decisions are a useful indication to us, having regard to Article 46 of the Palestine Order in Council of 1922 and section 11 of the Law and Administration Ordinance, 1948. One of the first of these judgments was that given by the Privy Council in the case of Cook v. Sprigg (1). In that case it was held that a plaintiff in a municipal court cannot rely upon international law and that a municipal court does not exist to ensure observance of obligations imposed upon a sovereign government by the principles of international law. This rule was followed in one of the most important cases dealing with this question, though to a more limited extent: West Rand Central Gold Mining Co. o. The King (2). The rule expressed in that case can be summarised as follows: whatever has received the common assent of our country, and that to which we have assented along with other nations in general, may properly be called international law, and as such will be acknowledged and applied by our municipal tribunals when legitimate occasions arise for those tribunals to decide questions to which doctrines of international law may be relevant.

           

            It follows, then, that in order to prove a rule of international law, sufficient evidence must be brought to show that the State in question has recognised it and acts according to it, so that the character of the rule in question, or the fact that the rule is recognized by so many other States, leads to the conclusion that no civilized State can ignore it. As is said in the West Rand Central Gold Mining Co. case (2) :

           

            "The mere opinions of jurists, however eminent or learned, that it ought to be so recognised, are not in themselves sufficient. They must have received the express sanction of international agreement, or gradually have grown to be part of international law by their frequent practical recognition in dealings between various nations." (at page 407.)

           

            The principles and dicta from this case were quoted with approval by the Court of Appeal of England in Commercial Estates Co. of Egypt v. Board of Trade (3). The question to what extent municipal courts will adjudicate according to the rules of international law also arose in the case of The Cristina (4). There Lord MacKillan said: "It is manifestly of the highest importance that the Courts of this country before they give the force of law... to any doctrine of international law, should be satisfied that it has the hallmarks of general assent and reciprocity."

 

            We shall now return to the second question that arises in this case, and that is whether there is a principle of international law agreed to and accepted by civilized peoples which accords a right to the applicant to claim payment of the debt which is the subject of this case from the State of Israel.

           

            The applicant is a Company which was registered in Palestine and its registered office is at Tel Aviv. No evidence has been brought before us as to the composition of the company, that is to say, in regard to the question who are the owners of the shares in the company and who exercises control over the company. It seems to me, therefore, that in this case the essential elements which would justify the application of international law are lacking. If the Company is an Israeli Company, can its relations with the Government of Israel be regulated by the principles of international Law? Does international law really have to do with relations such as these ?

           

            It is enough to say here that, with regard to this question, there are opinions to the effect that relations such as these are entirely outside the scope of international law. See as to this Kelsen's article, Theorie generale du droit international public, problemes choisis, in vol. 49 of the Recueil des Cours of the Hague Academy of International Law, p. 1.17, particularly from p. 312 onwards, where the following passages occur:

           

            "In so far as concerns debts due to individuals who become, as a result of territorial changes, citizens of the successor State, here there can arise no question of a legal succession based upon principles of general international law itself. The relations between the State and its citizens are in the exclusive jurisdiction of the State in question which can therefore, acting in full accord with international law, decide quite freely whether it will take upon itself debts such as these" (p. 329).

 

And again,

 

            "It can no longer be alleged from the point of view of general international law that the successor is under any obligation to pay to its own citizens contract debts originally created by its predecessor, because relations such as these between a State and its citizens are not a proper matter to be dealt with by international law" (p. 332).

           

            Thus we see that there exists a doubt whether it is possible, in the case before us, to rely at all on international law in the absence of anything international (such as international agreements, foreign nationality, etc.) about the relations existing between the applicant and the State of Israel.

           

            It is indeed true that there are writers who are inclined to deal with questions similar to that before us from the point of view of international law, but it is possible to point out that, even in their views, there exists no clear and generally accepted rule of law to support the applicant's allegation that the State of Israel is obliged to discharge the debt to the applicant from the Government of Palestine.

           

            The above quoted judgment in the West Rand case (2), is important also with regard to the substance of the matter before us. In that case there arose a problem similar to that before us today, namely : was the Government of the United Kingdom responsible for the payment of the debts of the South African Republic which it had overcome by conquest? Counsel for the plaintiff in that case argued that all the contractual liabilities of the vanquished State which had been entered into before the outbreak of the war, passed after conquest to the victor State, regardless of the precise characteristics of the obligation or its origin.

 

            The facts in that case may shortly be summarised as follows: A certain quantity of gold which had belonged to the plaintiff was taken by the authorities of the South African Republic for governmental purposes. According to the laws of the Republic, the Government was obliged to return the gold to its owners, or pay its value. Before the return of the gold or payment of its value, war broke out between Britain and the Republic, which terminated in the conquest of the Republic by the British Government. The company, relying upon the principle above referred to, claimed the value of the gold from the British Government.

 

            The submission of the plaintiff company was not accepted, and the claim was dismissed. The grounds affecting the merits of the matter are of interest to us.

           

            As appears from the judgment, counsel for the company was obliged to contend that the conquering government was liable for the payment of all the debts of the conquered government. Were that not so, the court would be obliged to examine the origin and nature of each debt, and the circumstances in which it was created. On the other hand, it was clear that the court was unable to examine the actions of the conquered government, and there was no possibility, according to the laws of evidence by which the courts were bound, of proving the facts necessary for such an examination which were of importance for the purpose of examining the origin of the obligations or the circumstances in which they were created. In order to escape these difficulties, so it was submitted by counsel for the company, the conquering government was liable for all the debts of the conquered government without exception, although one difficulty did arise : whether it was really just to demand of the conquering government that it pay all such debts? In the judgment cited various examples are quoted of obligations in respect of which it cannot be conceived that the conquering government would be liable for their discharge. The court finally held that there exists no principle in terms of which the conquering State is liable for the discharge of the debts of the conquered State.

 

            It seems to me, in connection with the question before us, that the difficulties are greater than those with which the court was concerned in the case of West Rand Central Gold Mining Company (2).

           

            Is the State of Israel responsible for the payment of all the debts of the former Mandatory Government, even those which had been incurred during its struggle against the aspirations of the Jewish people, aspirations which were to bring about the establishment of the State of Israel? Is the State of Israel responsible for the discharge of debts due to former residents of Palestine who are not today residents of Israel? The territory of the State of Israel does not coincide with all the territory under the former Mandate. What, then, should be the relative proportion of the obligations of the mandatory Government which fall upon the State of Israel? Clearly it is not the task, nor is it within the capabilities, of a court of law to give a reply to these questions.

           

            In fact no authorities of international law were quoted in support of the applicant's argument that the Government of Israel is responsible for the former Mandatory Government's debt, the subject of this judgment. The text-books on international law distinguish between different classes of rights and liabilities and different rules apply to these different classes. But regarding the question before us there is no need to mention those rules which have no direct connection with the subject-matter of this judgment. We are concerned with a demand for the payment of a debt and it will be sufficient if I say that there does not exist in international law any generally accepted rule imposing liability on the State of Israel to discharge this debt. In support of this I will refer to several authorities to demonstrate the differences of opinion existing on this question, to make it clear that there is no justification for holding that the argument put forward on behalf of the applicant is an accepted principle of International law.

 

            The territory of the State of Israel, as has already been mentioned, does not coincide with all the territory under the former Mandate. Consequently the problem before us is not dissimilar to the problem which a following the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after the First World War. This question is dealt with on p. 160 of vol. I of Oppenheim's International Law (7th Ed.). There it is stated that it would be only just in such circumstances if the successor had to take over a corresponding part of the debt of its predecessor, but no rule of international law concerning this point can be said to exist, although many treaties have stipulated a devolution of a part of the debt of the predecessor upon the successor.

           

            After the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy the question was discussed by several law courts in the successor States. Perusal of the volumes of the Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases for the years 1925-6, 1927-8 and 1929-30 shows that, on this question, the majority of the courts decided that there is no succession in regard to such debts except where the Peace Treaties provided otherwise. It is interesting to point out that in one case, the Succession in Obligations (Fees Paid in Error) case (5), the Supreme Administrative Court of Czechoslovakia gave judgment against the Republic of Czechoslovakia in a case about the payment of a debt due in circumstances similar to those before us. However, the Czechoslovak legislature found it necessary to change the situation brought about by that judgment, and it cancelled the liability of the Czechoslovakian Government in such circumstances. See Annual Digest, 1927-1928, Case No. 58, and Notes thereto. See also Oppenheim, loc cit. p. 160, footnote 2.

 

            Regarding the above question it is also valuable to recall the arbitral award rendered by Borel in the Affair of the Ottoman Public Debt (6). In that arbitration, to which the Government of Palestine was a party, it was argued that there exists no principle of international law requiring States, acquiring portions of territory from another State, to pay any relative proportion of the international debt of the former State. The arbitrator agreed with that contention. Kelsen also, in the above quoted article, after analysing various points of view, states :

           

            "Whatever the debt it should be observed that the rules of general international law regulating succession nowhere impose upon the successor State an obligation to pay creditors who are or became its nationals or who remain its nationals or who remain nationals of its predecessor. For the rest, it is not possible to affirm that, in so far as concerns the creditors who are nationals of third States, the successor State is in all circumstances under an international obligation towards such third States to pay those of its citizens who are creditors in respect of contract debts undertaken by its predecessor" (loc. cit. p. 348).

 

            It is my opinion, therefore, that there is no justification for the view that there exists, in international law, any rule which commands general assent and which is thus part of the municipal law of the country, imposing upon the State of Israel responsibility for the discharge of the debt the subject matter of this judgment and I therefore hold that the application for the order that the appeal should proceed between the Attorney-General of the Government of Israel as appellant and the applicant as respondent is not well founded.

           

            There is also no ground for the applicant's alternative request and there is no need to dwell upon it at length. It is inherently unsound. On the one hand the applicant argues that the Government of Palestine has ceased to exist, and on the other hand it moves this court to appoint a person to accept service in place of the former Government. In argument, Counsel for the applicant mentioned the Crown Agents who, in his view, should take the place of the original appellant and who should therefore be summoned in the appeal, but no authority in support of this was cited, nor is there any evidence to show the existence of any connection between the Crown Agents and the Government of Palestine so as to enable the court to fix responsibility on the Crown Agents in regard to the claim. Had there been any substance in this argument, it would have been necessary to consider another question, namely : are the Crown Agents a department of the British Government so that this court cannot assume jurisdiction to deal with a claim against them, owing to the well-known rule of State immunity? However, having regard to what I have said above, there is no need to go into this question. Counsel for the applicant also asked for appropriate relief so as to bring the appeal to an end. This request can be well understood. The applicant obtained a judgment in his favour from a competent court. An appeal was submitted in the name of a Government which has since ceased to exist and there is, therefore, no possibility of hearing it. The Civil Procedure Rules do not contain any provision regarding the cancellation of an appeal or its striking from the list for want of prosecution. According to the Rules, there is no possibility of making an order against the appellant unless he is duly summoned to a judicial hearing. However, the circumstances of this appeal are unique and the legislator could not have foreseen them. In my opinion, therefore, it would be meet, even in the absence of an appropriate rule of procedure, to strike the appeal from the list of pending cases before this court without prejudice, so that this court shall have the right to return the appeal to the list if it should be so moved on the part of any person establishing his right to come in the place of the appellant.

 

ASSAF J. I concur.

AGRANAT J. I concur.

 

Appeal struck off the list without  prejudice to the rights of all parties.

Judgment given on April 12, 1950.

 

C.A. 118/51

 

 

NEW ZEALAND INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

v.

IZHAK YOUVAL (SALZMAN)

 

 

In the Supreme Court sitting as a Court of Civil Appeal.

[June 4, 1953]

Before: Silberg J., Assaf J., and Landau J.

 

 

 

Conflict of Laws - Palestine Order in Council, 1922, Article 46 - English law to be applied - English law, when applied as foreign law and not by virtue of Article 46, to be proved by experts - Principle of identity of laws - Contract of marine insurance - Ottoman Maritime Code, 1863, s. 193.

 

                The plaintiff, a Haifa merchant, insured with the defendant, a company having its head office apparently in New Zealand and a branch in London, a consignment of 100 watches despatched to him from Paris. The policy, made in Haifa and mentioning the London branch, was in English and contained a "lost-or-not-lost" clause. In fact the watches had been sent from Paris twenty days before the issue of the policy, but this fact was not disclosed to the underwriters. The consignment was stolen while in transit in France, and only seven watches were recovered. It was impossible to determine whether the theft had been committed before or after the date of the policy. The District Court gave judgment against the defendants for the value of 93 watches, holding that the information relating to the prior despatch of the watches had not been withheld by fraud on the plaintiff's part, and that there was no duty on him to volunteer it.

 

                Held, allowing an appeal and remitting the case to the District Court for further consideration:

               

                1. The question what was the law applicable to the contract, being one of conflict of laws to which no local law extended or applied, must be determined in accordance with the English common law by virtue of Article 46 of the Palestine Order in Council, 1922.1)

               

                2. Quaere, whether the English law rule is that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary a contract of marine insurance is governed by the law of the place where the underwriter carries on his business.

               

                Spurrier v. G.F. La Cloche 1902 A.C. 446 and

                Greer v. Poole (1879) 5 Q.B.D. 272 considered.

               

                3. There was no evidence before the court to prove either what was the country in which the underwriter carried on business or, assuming it to be England, what the provisions of the English law were. As distinct from a case in which English common law is applicable under Article 46, it is necessary to prove such law by expert evidence when it is to be applied as a foreign law.

 

                4. In the absence of evidence, it must be presumed that the law of the defendant's place of business is identical with the local law.

 

                5. A question of marine insurance is comprehensively answered by the Ottoman Maritime Code, 1863, and there is no occasion to turn to English law under Article 46. On the contrary, the Code must be interpreted in the light of the French law from which it was derived.

               

                6. By Article 193 of the Ottoman Mercantile Code 1) a contract of insurance will be cancelled in the event of the non-disclosure of a fact which, had it been known to him, would have prevented any ordinary, reasonable underwriter from consenting to the conditions included in the policy.

               

                Accordingly:

               

(a)          The question does not depend upon whether the assured knew or did not know of the loss of the watches, or whether he acted fraudulently or not.

 

(b) The "lost-or-not-lost" clause proved that the mere fact that the watches had already been despatched at the date of policy could not have affected the underwriters' estimate of the risk insured.

 

(c)           The question whether the non-disclosure of the fact that the watches were already in transit for twenty days at the time when the insurance was applied for affected the validity of the contract depended upon whether that period was so long in reference to the circumstances that an ordinary, reasonable underwriter would regard it as increasing the risk he had underwritten. That question should be answered by the District Court.

 

                Case remitted accordingly.

 

Palestine cases referred to :

(1)          C.A. 123/41 - Gustav Weil v. Barclays Bank (D.C. & O.), Haifa Branch; (1941) 2 S.C.J. 354.

(2)          C.A. 259/41 - Leopold Baef v. The Palestine Building Syndicate, Ltd.; (1942) 1 S.C.J. 82.

(3)          C.A. 73/43 - L. v. L; (1943) 1 A.L.C. 245.

 

Israel cases referred to:

(4)          C.A. 37/48 - Bank Hapoalim Ltd. v. Ya'acov Kravtsov; (1948/9) 1 P. 44.

(5)          C.A. 130/50 - Amal Ltd. v. Yehoshua Shindler; (1952) 6 P.D. 710.

(6)          C.A. 37/49 - Gila Cohen Rapoport v. Sara Paldwrowski; (1950) 4 P.D. 645.

(7)          C.A. 51/49 - Yosef Yazdi and Others v. Rivka Yazdi; (1950) 4 P.D. 762.

(8)          C.A. 167/47 - Binyamin Minkowitz v Zalnan Fishtsner & Others; (1948/49) 1 P. 49.

(9)          C.A. 65/49 - Moshe Freisler v Fritz Weiss; (1951) 5 P.D. 878.

 

English cases referred to :

(10)        Spurrier and Another v. G.F. La Cloche; (1902) A.C. 446.

(11)        Greer v. Poole and Others; (1880) 5 Q.B.D. 272.

 

Solomon for the appellant.

Meridor for the respondent.

 

                SILBERG J. This appeal concerns marine insurance and the question that has been raised before us is :what is the position in law of an assured who keeps silent and does not disclose to the insurance company that the goods have already been sent from the place of despatch, that they have been lost en route, and that it is not known whether such loss occurred before the contract was made or thereafter. The difficulties of this case are increased by the fact that the policy contained the well known "lost-or-not-lost" clause and that it did not restrict the insurance to future risks only.

               

2. The material facts are set out below, and particular importance must be attached to the relevant dates :

 

                (a) In 1947 the plaintiff Mr. Izhak Youval (Salzman), began business as an importer of watches. His method of operation was to send gold ingots to Prance for the purpose of being worked and mounted, and filled by the Lanco Company into watches which be later re-imported into Palestine as finished goods. One of these orders was carried out in the middle of March, 1947. It concerned some 250-300 watches which were to be sent from France to Haifa in small batches. At the same time the plaintiff informed the Lanco Company that he had opened a bankers' credit in its favour in connection with this order. Several months passed and after a great deal of correspondence the company at last telegraphed to the plaintiff on June 20, 1947, that it was about to send him 100 watches and requested him to have them insured. And indeed after seven days - that is on June 27th, 1947 - the watches were despatched from a Post Office in Paris. The company then wrote to the plaintiff to that effect in a letter which had left Paris on July 5th and which reached the plaintiff between the 10th and 12th but not later than the 15th of the same month. On receipt of the letter the plaintiff transferred by telegram to the Lanco Company the cost-price of the watches in accordance with the bill which was attached to the letter. On the 16th of July, Mr. Israel Salzman - the son of the plaintiff and the manager of his business - went to the office of Hamisrad Hameouhad Leahrayout Ltd., the agents of the appellant, the New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd. There he spoke to Mr. Frankel, the clerk in charge and requested him to insure 100 gold watches against loss and damage for up to 800 Palestine Pounds from the Post Office in Paris to Rehov Herzl, Haifa. Frankel agreed, Salzman paid the premium and the next day, that is on July 17, 1947, an insurance policy on behalf of the New Zealand Insurance Company was issued as requested and delivered to the plaintiff. At the time when Salzman requested the insurance to be effected he did not inform Frankel that the watches had already been sent from Paris; on the other hand he was not asked by Frankel whether the watches had already been sent or not. I shall deal with this point further in the course of this judgment.

 

                (b) Several months passed but the goods failed to reach their destination. The plaintiff inquired as to the meaning of this. The company tried to put him at his ease and investigations were made in France until finally - in February 1948 - it appeared that the watches had been stolen on the way and had disappeared, and that only seven of them had been recovered in Marseilles. From a letter which the plaintiff received towards the end of 1949 from the French Railways we learn that the person who stole the watches was found and arrested on or about July 26, 1947 but - as the Company adds regretfully - "the thief did not indicate the exact date on which the theft was committed."

               

                (c) The plaintiff applied to the agents of the Insurance Company and asked to be indemnified in respect of the damage (which according to the policy was payable in Haifa). The agents refused, their only ground being :

               

                "There is no evidence that the goods which were insured were still in existence when you requested the insurance to be made. It is obvious that a contract of           insurance can be made only in respect of existing goods and not on goods that are non-existent. Consequently we have to reject the claim."

 

                Because of this refusal the plaintiff lodged a claim before the District Court, Haifa, against the New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd. and (alternatively) against the Hamisrad Hameouhad Leahrayout Ltd., and asked for judgment against them in respect of the damage in the sum of L.P. 8.- for each of the 93 watches that had been stolen and not recovered or the sum of L.P. 744.-in all, together with interest and costs. In paragraph 5 of the statement of claim the plaintiff writes :

               

                "5. The loss of the said 93 watches took place subsequent to July 17, 1947. Alternatively, the plaintiff claims that even if it should appear that the said watches were lost between June 27, 1947, and July 17, 1947, the first defendant is liable for the damage."

               

                The defendants' main defence, as set out in paragraphs 5 and 6 of their statement of defence, was as follows:-

               

"5. The date of validity of the said policy was from July 17, 1947, in respect of the said goods provided that the said goods were at that time in transit through the post from France to 44, Rehov Herzl, Haifa.

6. According to the plaintiff, the goods were sent by post from France on June 27, 1947. The defendant was not liable for any loss to the goods during the period between June 27, 1947 and July 17, 1947. lf the goods were lost then their loss took place before the date of the policy and no liability lay on the defendant in respect of goods that were not in transit in the post before the policy came into force."

 

In addition to the above, the defendants added a vague and laconic plea in their statement of defence. Paragraph 7 reads as follows:

 

"7. The insurance policy does not cover the case in question.''

 

                No explanation was given as to why or wherefore. To the simple reader this sentence is nothing but a mere abstract and a more concentrated resume of the pleadings set out in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the statement of defence which I have set out.

               

                (d) From the letter of Hamisrad Hameouhad Leahrayout Ltd. rejecting the claim and from the statement of defence of the defendants, it is clear that, at the begining, the dispute centred on one small point. It was confined to the question whether the insurance company was or was not liable for loss which had taken place before the insurance policy was issued. But during the trial in the District Court and as a result of the evidence produced by each side, the area of dispute was widened considerably - with the consent it would seem of both parties - and the defence of the defendants began to be concentrated on another point. Put very shortly it was this : that because young Salzman, when effecting the insurance, was silent about the goods having already been sent from the place of despatch and did not disclose this fact to the insurers, the Company was not liable to pay for the damage even if the goods were lost after the issue of the policy. From the point of view of the trial this change of front was legitimate and I am not prepared to consider it per se as being fatal to the defence. (Compare Bank Hapoalim Ltd. v Ya'acov Kraftsov (4), Amal Ltd. v. Yehoshua Shindler (5), and there is no difference in this connection between a cause of action and a ground of defence). But the lateness of the plea is an indication of the fact that the defendants themselves did not attach much importance to Mr. Salzman's failure to disclose the date of despatch of the watches. And the learned judge would do well, when the case is remitted to him, in the light of the directions at the end of this judgment, to give this point due consideration and the necessary weight, taking into account all the other factors.

 

                (e) The learned judge did not accept the pleas of the defendants and gave judgment against the New Zealand Insurance Co. for the amount claimed. He struck out the claim against the second defendants (Hamisrad Hameouhad Leahrayout) as it was entered alternatively - "only in the event of it appearing that the second defendant was authorised to act in the name of the first defendant in the said matter", (see paragraph 6 of the Statement of Claim) - and it appeared that the Company was in fact entitled to act in the name of the first defendant. The question which the learned judge put to himself in the fact instance was - did Mr. Salzman know on July 16, 1947, or did he not know that the goods were lost ? And he held that Mr. Salzman did not know of the loss of the goods. Salzman had not been asked by Frankel if the goods had been dispatched from Paris or not, and - in the opinion of the learned judge - Salzman was under no obligation on his own initiative to mention the date of despatch of the goods. The policy contained the clause 'lost or not lost' and the company was also liable for loss which had occurred before the contract was signed. It followed from these findings - and the learned judge gave judgment to that effect - that the company could not escape the liability it had undertaken towards the plaintiff. And it is against this judgment that the appellants are now appealing. Both parties are agreed that the insurance in question is marine insurance and has to be interpreted according to the general rules that apply to this particular branch of insurance.

 

3. Before I deal with the legal liability of the insurance company arising out of the policy I should like to mention a preliminary point which I regret to say was not sufficiently considered during the hearing. The question is : which law applies in order to discover where legal liability lies? The choice here is between the Ottoman Commercial Code - which was introduced locally by statute and which was based on the French Commercial Code - and the marine insurance rules of the English common law, or even perhaps - as we shall see further on - between these laws and both the common law and the statutory law of the foreign country to which the insurance company belongs. We listened to many ingenious arguments from counsel for the appellants, Mr. Solomon, but almost all of them were based on the well known rules of the English common law and only incidentally and en passant did he touch on some sections of the Ottoman Code. Mr. Meridor, on the other hand, was more cautious and more comprehensive but he too founded interesting arguments on the principles of the common law applicable in the English law of marine insurance. It seems to me with all respect, that both learned counsel have failed somewhat to give sufficient importance to the basic problem. They dealt with it - I would almost say - with reticence and this is a pity for without doubt they could easily have made a valuable contribution to the solution of this important question. In any case and whatever may be the result of this "reticence" of theirs, we are most grateful to both counsel for the wide range of their arguments, for they have thereby shown us interesting points of similarity and enabled us to examine and consider the differences - if any - of the various systems of law in their approach to the problem before us.

 

4. The question therefore is which law governs marine insurance in this case? And this question has two aspects.

                (a) In view of the fact that there are clear provisions in the local Ottoman mercantile law - that is to say, the Commercial Code, on this very subject, may we apply the English common law rules respecting insurance?

               

                (b) Considering that the contract in question is an insurance contract written in a foreign language, made with a foreign company whose place of domicile is in a foreign country (New Zealand or England) are we not bound in this case to apply the "national" law of the company, that is to say, the law in force in its "place of business"?

               

5. We shall first deal with the second question which is the more difficult of the two. For the answer to it can help us in solving the first problem. This is the question relating to private international law, and for its solution we must turn to the English Common Law. That is because on this subject there is no local law - apart from some rules in connection with personal status - and here Article 46 of the Palestine Order in Council automatically applies. Under this Article we are obliged in the absence of a local law, to apply the principles recognised by the English common law.

 

                But when we come to examine the English legal literature which deals with this branch of the subject we come across a special - almost peculiar - rule regarding the law that applies to such policies of insurance. The most forceful expression of the rule is found in the well known book on Private International Law by Wolff, second edition, p. 486, where it is said :-

               

                "Insurance contracts, except for contracts for re-insurance between companies, will in case of doubt be governed by the law of the insurer's place of business. The same is probably true of most other kinds of contracts that are concluded under typical conditions set up by great industrial, commercial, or railway companies, contracts 'where one will predominates, dictating its law not to single individuals but to an undetermined collectivity and leaving to those who want to enter into an engagement nothing more than unreservedly to accept the terms of the contract, to adhere to them' ...Such mass contracts, concluded under identical conditions ...can maintain their uniformity only if they are all governed by the same law, and there is a strong inference that this is the law of the place of the enterprise."

 

                A statement of much wisdom and weight ! But I am very doubtful if it truly and correctly sets out the position as it is in English law. The quotation in the above statement is taken from the French book of Saleilles, "De la declaration de la Volonte", and it certainly cannot be considered as an authority binding on our courts.

               

                Of greater weight is another authority which is cited by Wolff - that is the case of Spurrier v. G.F. La Cloche (10). But on examining the judgment itself we see that Wolff's opinion as it was expressed by him was not adopted by the English judges but that they made it subject to several qualifications which blunt its edge and deprive it of its potential sting.

               

                For what were the facts in that case? A resident of Jersey (one of the Channel Islands belonging to Britain) insured his stamp collection against loss and fire with an English company. The policy was in English and not French which is the language of this English island - and it was signed in Jersey by the agents of the company. The policy contained a condition to the effect that all disputes between the company and the assured regarding liability to pay for any damage or the amount or extent involved had to be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Act 1889, or any other amending act and that a decision of the arbitrators was a condition precedent to any claim for damages being made against the company unless the company admitted liability to pay the amount claimed. This condition precedent is illegal according to the laws of Jersey - because it restricted the jurisdiction of the courts - but valid according to English law. The question arose whether this was an "English contract" which had to be interpreted according to English law or a "Jersey contract" which had to be interpreted according to Jersey law ? The answer was that the contract was English. And this is what Lord Lindley said in his speech in that case :-

 

                "Their lordships are of opinion that, although this policy was made in Jersey, and any money payable under it would have to be paid to the assured in Jersey, the nature of the transaction, the language in which the policy is expressed, and the terms of the agreement and of the conditions, all show that the contract between the parties is an English contract and that wherever sued upon its interpretation and effect ought, as a matter of law, to be governed by English and not by Jersey law. The intention of the parties is too plain to be mistaken; the contract to pay out of the funds of the company is of itself very significant; and the reference to the English Arbitration Acts shews that the arbitration proceedings were to be conducted according to English law and no other." (Ibid., p. 450).

 

And the plaintiff's claim was dismissed in consequence.

 

                We see here something which very often happens in English judgments because of the well known reluctance of English judges to create "dangerous" precedents. The decision was based not on one but on many facts, so that the ratio decidendi of the judgment is in effect the result of all the facts taken together. We do not know what their lordships would have decided if the policy had been drawn up in the language commonly used in Jersey nor if the policy had not mentioned the English statutes although the language of the policy was English. As an authority, therefore, this judgment is meagre indeed and it cannot support the aside and sweeping generalisation as expressed above by Wolff in his book. It should also be noticed that the question in that case concerned the validity of a condition specified expressly in the body of the policy whereas Wolff's opinion, if correct, would mean that in connection with the whole problem of liability ensuing from the contract, one would be obliged as a matter of course to apply the "national" law of the policy - and for this proposition this English case is certainly no authority.

 

6. A similar rule to that propounded by Wolff is found in Dicey's book where Wolff is quoted (in one of the notes) as authority for it and an English judgment given in 1880 is cited in further support. I refer to Dicey's Conflict of Laws, sixth edition, p. 674 :

 

                "Rule 149 - A marine insurance policy issued by an underwriter carrying on business in England is governed by English law, except in so far as the policy stipulates that it be construed or applied in whole or in part according to the law of a foreign country."

 

As a comment on this rule it is said :

 

                "This Rule is an application of the general principle that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a contract of marine insurance in governed by the law of the country in which the underwriter carries on his business."

 

Immediately after this it is added:

 

                "This will, as a rule, also be the lex loci contractus and the lex loci solutionis."

               

                It is said here "as a rule", that is to say, not always. This means that in the opinion of Dicey the rule will also apply in the case where the lex loci contractus is different from the law of the country where the underwriter carries on his business. But what is the authority for this? We do not have to search long for it because the author himself tells us whence it comes. He directs as to a judgment given in Greer v Poole (11), and (in comment 1) says, citing the words of Lush L.J. :

               

                "It is no doubt competent to an underwriter on an English policy to stipulate, if he thinks fit, that such policy shall be construed and applied in whole or in part according to the law of any foreign state, as if it had been made in and by a subject of the foreign state, ...but, except when it is so stipulated, the policy must be construed according to our law, and without regard to the nationality of the vessel." (ibid. p. 674).

 

                Again we are bound to be not a little disappointed when we examine the original judgment and inquire into the facts as they appear from the pleadings and the judgment itself. An English merchant insured with an English firm of underwriters certain goods which were on a French ship proceeding from Lagos to Marseilles. The ship whilst on the high seas was involved in a collision which caused it, but not its cargo, damage and was towed to Gibraltar for examination and repairs. The owner of the ship, for lack of funds mortgaged both ship and cargo with a certain money lender to obtain the money necessary. The ship was repaired and proceeded to Marseilles. The money lender claimed back the loan and the owner of the cargo - the English merchant above mentioned - had to pay from his own pocket some money to release the goods from the money lender. The question arose whether the English underwriters were liable to pay these costs. The problem was this - was the loss a 'loss by perils of the seas' and therefore also included in the insurance covered by the policy, or was it not such a loss and therefore not covered by that policy? This is a question of law which is dealt with by both French and English law - only the French answer is positive and the English - negative. The question therefore is which law applies in this case? And the answer of the English court was that English law applied - because as appears in our citation 'the policy must be construed according to our law without regard to the nationality of the vessel', and the underwriters were consequently not liable to pay for this damage.

               

                Does this judgment support the sweeping statement that all English marine insurance policies even if effected abroad are to be interpreted according to English law? This does not seem to me to be the case. In all the facts mentioned in that case both by counsel for the parties and by the judge, there was not even the slightest hint that the insurance contract in question was made outside England. Had this been the case there would have been no doubt that counsel for the merchant-plaintiff would have pointed it out. Further the words which Lush J. used in parenthesis - "as if it had been made in a foreign state" - indicate that the policy was not effected in a foreign country. We are entitled therefore to presume that all the "factors" in that case were English: the merchant who was insured, the underwriters who effected the insurance, their place of business and the place where the contract was made - all except the ship, which had French nationality. The choice in that case therefore was not between the law of the place of business of the underwriters on the one hand, and the law of the place where the contract was made on the other, but between the law of the place where both the underwriters had their business and the contract was made, on the one hand, and the law of the country to which only the ship carrying the cargo belonged, on the other. Placed with this uneven choice there was no room for hesitation, and so the court ruled in favour of English law. In any case, one cannot take this judgment as authority - and perhaps Dicey himself did not mean - that an English policy will always be interpreted according to English law even if the contract of insurance was effected outside England.

 

6. But - and this is the last point which is decisive here - even if we were to adopt the method of Wolff and Dicey in solving this problem and be ready to accept all the consequences involved in it, we would still not be able to answer the question before us. This is simply because we do not know two facts - I repeat, two facts: (a) Where is the place of business of this company - is it in London or New Zealand? (b) What is the national law of the place of business of this company? Even if we were to suppose - and this would be highly arbitrary on our part - that as far as the assured in Palestine was concerned ''the place of the company's business" was its London branch, the name of which appeared at the bottom of the policy, we still do not know as a matter of law what is the law on marine insurance which is in force in England as well as what legislation on the subject has been enacted there at least since the year 1906. We have to be careful not to be confused by, and to avoid the mistake of relying purely on, outward similarities. If by following the rule proposed by .Wolff and Dicey, we have to ascertain the law which is in force in England on the subject, this will not be the English common law which, through article 46 of the Order in Council, has become our "own" local law, but the English law as a foreign law consisting of both common law as well as statutes.  This law we have to apply by reason of the principles of Private International Law because of the "foreign quality" of the company in the same way as we would have had to apply American law, for example, had "the place of business" of the company been in New York. This English law as a "foreign law" and especially the statutory part of it, cannot be considered as "a notorious fact that requires no proof." Even though it is "English" it has to be proved like all foreign law by evidence of experts and not by reference to text books. For the content of a foreign law is a question of fact and not a question of law (See Weil v. Barclays Bank (1); Baer v. The Palestine Building Syndicate, (2); L. v. L., (3); and no judge may decide what the foreign law is from personal knowledge except on the most simple points where proof by experts is manifestly unnecessary (See Dicey, ibid. p. 868). The problem here is certainly not one that can be considered as simple as this. Possibly, as regards English law, the position was different on this point when Palestine was a British Mandated territory. But now that Israel is an independent State there is no justification for this difference. We therefore cannot apply in this case foreign marine insurance law unless this law has been proved before the court below and this has not been done. And because this law has not been proved and as a matter of law we do not know what it is - indeed we do not even know where to look for it, whether in New Zealand or England - we will have to fill the void by adopting the well known fiction of Private International Law which is known as the principle of "identity of laws". As is well known, according to this principle the court must presume - generally speaking - that the foreign law which has not been proved is identical with the local law respecting the matter in question. (Dicey, ibid. Rule 194 pp. 866-867; Rapaport v. Paldwrowski (6); Yazdi v. Yazdi (7). We thus in effect return by a round about way to the local law which must apply, although formally we do so by introducing it in the garb of "foreign law".

 

7. Consequently whether the view of Wolff and Dicey is correct or not, in the appeal in this case at any rate, we must apply the local law because the "national law" of the policy, which is different from it, has not been properly proved.

 

8. We therefore come back to the first question : what is in first this local law? Is it local law in the narrow sense, that is to say, the Ottoman Law of Marine Insurance, or does it also include the recognised principles of the English common law which have become part of the "local law" in its widest sense through the directive of Article 46 of the Palestine Order in Council, as it has been interpreted? It seems to me that as far as this question is concerned there is no doubt whatsoever. Following precedents from the days of the Mandate, this court has ruled that the courts of this country are not required to apply the English common law "in respect of any legal problem requiring solution if the question can find some kind of answer in parallel provisions of the law of Palestine even though it is incomplete and faulty", Minkowitz v. Fishtner (8). And how much more so is this the case when the legal problem, as the one before us, has been provided for in the local law by a statute which is neither incomplete nor faulty? The main question to be answered in this appeal is what is the effect and consequence of silence on the part of the assured concerning the first that the goods had already been despatched? And this question of silence on the part of the assured is answered fully and exhaustively in a special section of a local statute - that is to say, section 193 of the Ottoman Maritime Code, 1863, which is in force in this country by virtue of the first part of Article 46 of the Palestine Order in Council. As is well known, this Ottoman Law adopted most of the principles of the corresponding French law (Second Book, Chapters 1-14 of the French Maritime Law 1807), and most of its sections were copied word for word. On this subject therefore French law is one of the sources of our own law and we can refer to it - without resorting to the evidence of experts - in order to clarify terms common to both. On the other hand, because of the very close similarity between the two laws, it is particularly important to notice those few instances where the text of the Ottoman law differs from that of the French law. (Compare the judgment of Agranat J. in Freisler v. Weiss (9).)

 

9. When we come to compare article 198 of the Ottoman Maritime Code with Article 848 of the French Commercial Code from which it was copied we notice at once just such a difference. This article of the Ottoman Code is different in that it has a further provision and contains half of a long paragraph which does not appear in Article 848 of the French Code.

 

                The relative articles of these two laws read as follows:

               

Article 848 du Code de Commerce (in French):

                "Toute réticence, toute fausse déclaration de la part de l'assuré, toute différence entre le contrat d'assurance et le connaissement qui diminueraient l'opinion de risque ou en changeraient le sujet, annullent l'assurance..."

               

Article 193 du Code de Commerce Maritime (Ottoman) :

                "Rend le contrat nul pour l'assureur, toute reticence, toute fausse déclaration de la part de l'assuré, toute différence entre le contrat d'assurance et le connaissement, qui diminueraient l'opinion du risque, ou en changeraient le sujet, et qui serait de nature à empêcher le contrat ou en modifier les conditions, si l'assureur eut été avert du véritable état des choses..."

               

                In translation the articles read as follows:-

               

Article 848 of the French Commercial Code:

               

                "Any silence, false declaration on the part of the assured (or) any difference between the policy of insurance and the bill of lading that is likely to diminish the assessment of the risk or to change the subject matter, cancels the insurance..."

               

Article 193 of the Ottoman Maritime Code:

                "The contract will be cancelled as far as the assured is concerned by reason of any silence, false declaration on the part of the assured, (or) any difference between the policy of insurance and the bill of lading that is likely to diminish the assessment of risk or to change the subject matter and which by its nature would have prevented the agreement being concluded of would have called for different conditions if the undertwriter had been informed of the true state of the facts..."

               

                This translation needs amplification because it lacks something - as happens in all translations - that something which is lost when the text of a passage is transmitted from one language to another. It is not necessary that the reticence, the declaration etc. should actually diminish the assessment of the risk. It is sufficient for them to appear as being "likely" to. This is in my opinion the nearest word that conveys in translation the meaning of the original language used by the authors of these two laws.

               

                Let us now compare the language of these articles. The words at the end of Article 193 of the Ottoman Code, which I have quoted in italics, do not appear at all in Article 848 of the French Code, as we have already noticed. And it is not for nothing that these words were added. It means - and one cannot escape from this conclusion - that the Turkish legislator was unwilling to invalidate an insurance policy by reason of silence, for example, except where not only would the silence, that is to say the non-disclosure of a fact, be likely to diminish the assessment of the risk, but where also the opposite, that is to say where the disclosure of the fact would "by its very nature" have prevented the conclusion of the agreement or changed its terms.

               

10. And one may well ask what is the meaning and significance of this additional condition? Logically speaking it is not certain that it would follow automatically from the very change in the assessment of the risk. For if the silence of the assured as regards the real facts have the effect on the underwriter of diminishing in his view the amount of the risk, then surely the opposite, that is disclosure of the real facts, must have the effect of increasing in his view the amount of the risk and his reaction would no doubt be either to refuse to insure because it would not pay him to do so or to change the terms in his favour by asking for a higher premium etc. The underwriter knows the terms of his policy well and presumably would not neglect his interests. And if so, how has the Ottoman legislator helped in this by amending Article 348 and what further provision has he added to the previous single condition it contained? On the other hand we cannot possibly ignore the clause that has been added and certainly this was not done just to make it look more attractive. We must, therefore, do our utmost to give the language some sort of practical significance and the only question is what and how?

 

11. It seems to me that our dilemma can be solved only in one way, that is by putting special emphasis on the words "which by its nature would" which appear in the clause that was added by the Ottoman legislator - either to introduce something new or to increase the emphasis, so as to remove doubts and avoid mistakes. What emerges is that the criterion must be objective and general and not individual and personal (that is to say taking into consideration the special mentality of a particular under-writer). The fact which the assured did not disclose should be of such a nature that had it been disclosed it would have prevented any reasonable underwriter from consenting to the conditions which had been agreed upon. This is the objective quality which if present makes a policy null and void even if the assured had no intention of deceiving. For "dolus" is not necessary to render a policy void on the ground of silence on the part of the assured, as a contract can be avoided on this ground even if the assured acted in good faith. According to the well known commentators Ripert, Lyon-Caén and Dalloz (Ripert, Précis de Droit Maritime, 6-ème éd. paragraph 594); Lyon-Caèn, Traité de Droit Commercial, 5-ème éd. paragraph 1447; Dalloz, Code de Commerce, Article 348) this is the position in French law. And on this point, at least, the French opinion is sufficient legal authority as to the way the term, as used in the Ottoman Law, should be interpreted because the whole conception of silence was copied by the Ottoman legislator from French law.

 

                The importance of the innovation or the emphasis in Article 193 becomes much clearer when this objective quality is absent. That is to say where even though the knowledge of the fact, which the assured had not disclosed, was most likely to increase the measure of the risk in the view of this particular under-writer, and so naturally either prevent the conclusion of the contract or cause a change in its terms, yet it was not a fact which by its very nature, generally and objectively speaking, was likely to have any influence on an ordinary reasonable under-writer. In such a case - this is the effect of Article 193 - the silence per se would not be a ground for cancelling the contract of insurance and only when other factors are added, such as, for example, an intention to deceive, will it become void or voidable in accordance with the accepted rules of the general law of contract. This is the only interpretation - so it seems to me - which it is possible to give to what has been added to Article 193 by the Ottoman legislator. Without it it is impossible to find any justification for the addition of this second qualification.

               

12 Having investigated the legal background of the problem, let as now consider the grounds of the appeal in the light of the above principles. We need deal, in my view, only with the following three points raised by the appellant.

               

                (a) That the learned judge was wrong in making the verdict depend on whether Salzman knew or did not know of the loss of the watches at the time when he applied for the insurance policy;

               

                (b) that the bare fact that the watches had already been despatched from Paris at the time when the insurance policy was applied for was important in itself as it was likely to have an influence on the assessment of the risk and that it was the duty of Mr. Salzman to inform Mr. Frankel of it even assuming that he (Salzman) did not know or even suspect that the goods had been lost;

               

                (c) the appellant's third point, pleaded in the alternative, was that even if the watches had not been lost before the 16th of July, the day when the policy was applied for, they had already been on the way for some 20 days and that therefore Mr. Salzman was in duty bound to disclose this fact to Mr. Frankel because this long delay alone would have increased the amount of the risk in the view of Frankel and would certainly have caused him to refuse to issue the policy as he expressly testified before the court.

               

13. With regard to the first point, I am of the opinion that counsel for the appellant is correct. As I have already pointed out under the conditions specified in Article 193, the cancellation of the contract because of the silence of the assured does not depend on the intention of the assured to defraud. The contract is cancelled as a matter of course even if the assured did not know or did not suspect that the goods had been lost. The learned judge was wrong therefore in his approach when he held that the deciding factor was whether the assured knew or did not know of the loss of the said goods.

 

14. On the other band I am not prepared to accept the second contention of counsel for the appellants. As Mr. Meridor rightly points out, the answer to this contention is contained in one of the terms of the policy itself. For as will be remembered the policy includes the "lost or not lost" clause. "lost or not lost" in this case means on the way from Paris to Haifa - for the basic purpose of the insurance was to cover the loss that might occur during the transit of the watches from the post in Paris to Haifa. The defendants too in their defence (paragraph 5) speak of the validity of the policy in connection with the transit of the watches from France to Haifa. Hence the language of the defence clearly indicates the possibility that the goods had already left Paris and that even so the underwriter agreed to take the risk on himself. Consequently, therefore, he cannot complain and say that the non-disclosure of this fact increased his estimate of the risk. In the circumstances the underwriter should have been more cautious in his assessment of the whole risk which he was taking on himself. A hint, and also authority for this, can be found by comparing the language of Articles 210 and 212 (second paragraph) of the Ottoman law to which Mr. Meridor has drawn our attention. It is very possible that the position in English law is different as counsel for the appellants claims, and it is also possible that it is exactly the same as counsel for the respondents maintains. In any case, for the reasons given above, English law does not apply here.

 

15. As regards the third point, whether it is correct or not depends on the answer to another question which the learned judge, because of his approach to the problem, did not find necessary to give - although he had enough evidence before him to enable him to decide one way or the other.

 

                In paragraph 11 of this judgment I explained the criterion that is given in Article 193 for annulling a contract of marine insurance on the ground of the silence of the assured. This criterion is objective and the question which the court has to put to itself is shortly this : Was knowledge of the fact which the assured had not disclosed likely to increase the assessment of the risk in the view of any reasonable underwriter and so naturally to prevent him from consenting to the conditions which had been agreed upon, or not ? In the context of the facts of this case, the question would be this: Was knowledge of the despatch of the watches from Paris some 19-20 days previously likely to increase the assessment of the risk in the view of a reasonable underwriter - and not just Mr. Frankel - when this ordinary underwriter was prepared to issue a "lost or not lost" policy and to accept responsibility also for past losses? The answer to this obviously depends on the answer to the question, what is the period of time which such a consignment usually takes to arrive at Haifa from Paris, and whether a delay of some 20 days on the way was likely or not to arouse suspicion in the mind of an ordinary underwriter that it had been lost. The learned judge could have decided that point as he had before him evidence from both parties. But he did not consider it necessary to do so as he had held the defendants liable by reason of the criterion he had chosen, as explained above. This is, in my opinion, the only question which is still left open and on the answer to it would depend the fate of the claim. As we cannot decide this point in this court the case will have to be remitted to the District Court for a decision to be given there in the light of the evidence it had brought before it.

               

                I am of the opinion therefore that the appeal must be allowed, that the judgment of the District Court be set aside and the case remitted to it for completion, subject to the following directions.

               

                That the learned judge who heard the case should decide on the evidence which he had before him - without receiving further evidence - whether the delay of 19-20 days in the months June-July 1947, whilst these watches were on the way from Paris to Haifa, was unusual or not. Should the learned judge, after hearing the parties, hold on the evidence before him, that the defendants had succeeded in proving that this delay was unusual he should give judgment in their favour. Should he hold otherwise - he should give judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

 

ASSAF, J.: I concur.

 

LANDAU, J.: I concur.

 

Appeal allowed, judgment of the District Court set aside, and case remitted.

Judgment given on June 4, 1953.

 

Deputy President Landau: In this Further Hearing we are required to reexamine the rulings that emerge from the opinions of my esteemed colleagues, Shamgar J and Berinson J, in this Court's C.A. 723/94. In that case, by a majority decision over the dissenting opinion of my esteemed colleague Ben-Porat J, the court accepted the appeal of the Respondents before us, Ha'aretz Newspaper Ltd. and others, against the Petititioners, The Israel Electric Corporation, Ltd. and Yaacov Peled, and rejected the Petititioners' claim for the payment of damages for defamation. (The District Court's judgment was published in District Court Judgments 1975, at page 671, and the judgment in the appeal was published in 31(2) P.D. 281.) Of the two majority Opinions in this case, my esteemed colleague Shamgar J ranged extensively across the issues and rendered novel holdings concerning the law of defamation that have far reaching consequences, while Berinson J based his decision on narrower grounds, limited to the application of the provisions of the Law Forbidding Defamation, 5725-1965, to the facts of the case, without expressing any opinion concerning the questions of principle dealt with in my esteemed colleague's judgment. Therefore, my esteemed colleague's judgment concerning those questions expressed his views only. Nevertheless, it is clear that even as such, because of its extensive intellectual apparatus, this judgment might become accepted in the future as binding and give guidance to many concerning their conduct and their claims, unless we come to different conclusions in this Further Hearing.

 

            After much consideration, I have concluded that I must disagree with my esteemed colleague on the following three issues: First, as concerns the preferred status he attaches to the principle of free speech in our legal system over a person's right to his good reputation. Second, with regard to the manner in which he interprets the Law Forbidding Defamation, 5725-1965 (hereinafter - the Law), especially paragraph 15(4), which provides the defendant a defense for expressing an opinion in good faith. And third - and Berinson J joined my esteemed colleague in this matter - as to the manner in which they construed the article which was the subject of the claim and applied the Law to it. I will set forth my position on these issues in that order.

           

            My esteemed colleague writes as follows at page 240:

           

"The relationship between defamation and freedom of speech has been defined in various ways and approaches. The difference between these approaches is expressed principally in fixing the status of the two subjects in relation to each other, that is, whether they are treated as two separate fields with equal status, or whether they are regarded as values, one of which deserves preferential treatment and whose importance therefore outweighs the other, either in general or in particular circumstances."

 

            Immediately thereafter, he refers to the American cases, starting with those earlier decisions in which the judges "regarded the laws of defamation as an exception to the right of freedom of expression and defined them as prohibitions which impinge on this right and limit its absoluteness", and later, on page 241, the decision of the Federal Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan [18], according to which -

           

"with regard to defamatory matter concerning holders of official or public office, the view that designates the laws forbidding defamation as an exception to free speech and no more, has been abandoned in the United States ... for some considerable time in favor of the principle that gives higher standing to the right of expression of opinion on matters of public interest concerning the holders of official or public office."

 

            That American case held that publishing untrue facts concerning a public office holder is protected, unless it be proved that the defendant knew that the statements were false or was indifferent to the question whether they were true or not. My esteemed colleague adopted this view, and after noting the importance of the principle of the right to free speech, in the spirit of the judgment in Kol Ha'am [1], he said further, on page 243:

           

"The previously described character of freedom of expression as one of the fundamental constitutional rights gives it superior legal status.... Any limitation of the boundaries of this right and of its extent, which arises from legislation, will be narrowly construed so as to give the aforesaid right maximum scope and not to restrict it in the slightest beyond what is clearly and expressly required by the legislature's words.... Freedom of expression and a provision of law that limits it do not have equal and identical standing, but, rather, to the extent consistent with the written law, one should always prefer the maintenance of the right over a provision of law that tends to limit it."

 

            I asked myself, from what source did my esteemed colleague draw support for such forceful comments on a matter of greatest constitutional importance, other than the American law in New York Times v. Sullivan [18]. He also mentions the Hilron case [2], which dealt with the proper relationship between a legislative enactment and the principle of freedom of gainful employment. But the views expressed at the particular place referred to in that judgment, page 653, are those of my esteemed colleague which are the minority view. My own opinion, that of the majority, stated on page 650, was that "the labor of interpreting legislation must be done without any particular widening or narrowing tendency...." And in the Further Hearing in that case, (F.H. 27/76 [3]) the majority again agreed with my view and my esteemed colleague Kahan J said, at page 22:

           

"I do not in any way minimize the importance of the basic right to freedom of employment. However, it is well known that the legislator has restricted this right in various enactments and in various ways, based on the view that the public good requires the imposition of these restrictions.... When the legislator has expressed his view in clear terms in a particular law, the court must interpret that law according to its plain import and the legislator's intent...."

 

            And, closer to our matter, concerning what has been said in our judgments hitherto on the relationship between freedom of speech and defamation, I quote the words of Olshan J, in C.A. 90/49 [4], at page 597:

           

"... So long as a law exists that recognizes a person's right that his good repute not be impugned, it is in the public's interest that this right be honored and not be injured. If someone wishes to enjoy the right to freedom of speech and abuses such freedom, intentionally or otherwise, and in so doing injures another person's right, it is not unjust that he should be responsible toward the person so injured, and there is no ground for complaint that this entails some restriction on the citizen's right of free expression.

 

But each flower has a thorn. Since every publication involves some risk that it might contain something that could injure another person, this is likely to restrain all initiative for criticism or to disseminate information, even when the public good or that of the state require that such criticism be heard and that such information be disseminated.

 

Therefore, the law distinguishes between ordinary cases in which defamatory material is published and exceptional cases, in which the public good is preferred over the individual's right, even if this causes a certain amount of injustice to the individual."

 

Agranat J said in Cr. A. 24/50 [5], at page 1160:

 

   "Our point of departure is the general assumption of the common law - which also applies in this country as well - that each person has the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The objective of the local criminal law that establishes the offenses of distribution of defamatory material orally and publication of written libel, is to restrict this basic right when a person abuses it.... However, the law recognizes that, in certain conditions, the general good demands - so that the said basic right not be emptied of its content - that a person not be punished for publishing slanderous matters, since the harm which would be caused to the public by excessive restriction of freedom of speech and freedom of writing is preferred in the eyes of the law to the causing of any private injury."

 

            My esteemed colleague brought the final sentence of this quotation, on page 296, as being on all fours with the New York Times decision [18]. I do not agree: in my opinion, they are on all fours with the previous American precedents that my esteemed colleague summed up in the following words on page 240:

           

            "There were those who regarded the laws of defamation as an exception to the right of freedom of expression and defined them as prohibitions which impinge on this right and limit its absoluteness."

 

            In the Kol Ha'am case itself [l], at page 880, Agranat J explained the relationship between freedom of speech and the necessity to preserve public security in the following words:

           

"The principal cause for this complexity is the competition between two types of interests, each of which is of considerable social and political importance."

 

And earlier, at page 879, he said:

 

"The right of free speech is not absolute and unlimited, but a relative right, which can be restricted and controlled to preserve other important social and political interests which, in certain circumstances, are considered paramount to the interests which are secured by the exercise of the principle of freedom of speech. The fixing of the boundaries of the exercise of the right of freedom of speech and the press is therefore a process of balancing various competing values and choosing among them."

           

            While he thereafter describes the right of free speech as "a supreme right ... that is the condition precedent for the exercise of practically all the other basic freedoms", at page 878, he immediately adds: "One must distinguish between freedom and anarchy" and he recalls at that point his words in the Gorali case [5], and Lord Kenyon's dictum: "Freedom of the press is dear to England but anarchy of the press is an abomination in England".

           

            In my opinion, these arguments remain strong, even after the provisions in the Criminal Law Ordinance and the Civil Wrongs Ordinance concerning defamation have been replaced by the Law Forbidding Defamation, 5725-1965. Accordingly, freedom of speech does not enjoy a superior status as opposed to other basic rights, but in Agranat J's words, it is

           

          "a process of balancing various competing values and choosing among them".

           

            This is not the "vertical" grading of a "superior right" against an ordinary right but the horizontal fixing of the boundaries of rights that have equal status, without any tendency to prefer one particular right as defined by legislation at the expense of its fellow right. From this it follows that one must interpret the statutory right according to its plain meaning in accordance with the legislature's intention, and not place some unwritten right above it.

           

            So far as I am aware, the idea of a superior right that stands above the written law has appeared thus far only once in our decisions, in the separate opinion of Sussman J (as his title was then) in E.A. 1/65 [6], at page 389. Sussman J's inspiration for this was the opinion of the Supreme Court of West Germany, which placed basic constitutional norms above even the written constitution. This view has been subjected to considerable academic criticism (Guberman, Israel's Supra-Constitution (1967) 2 Israel Law Review 445). Agranat P.J. did not follow this path. He interpreted the Knesset Election Laws in the light of the constitutional principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. In this regard he followed the path he himself had laid down in the Kol Ha'am decision [1], without any tendency to limit the written law by way of interpretation.

 

            To be more precise, what is at stake here is the citizen's freedom as opposed to his right, that is to say, his freedom to say what he wishes and to hear what others wish to say, as opposed to his right not to have his honor and good name impugned. If there is indeed any place for grading the two vis-a-vis each other, I would place the right above the freedom. (On the definition of a right as opposed to a freedom, see H.C. 112/77 [7], at p. 662.) It appears that this is how the draftsmen of the proposed bill, Basic Law: The Rights of Man and the Citizen (Proposed Bills 5733-1972, p. 448), to which my honorable colleague referred, presented the issue. Compare the right to express one's opinion, which appears there as a relative right, which may be restricted, according to section 11(b) "by legislation intended to ensure the existence of the democratic regime ... to protect the rights of others...", with section 3 to the effect that "each person is entitled to the lawful protection of his life, his body, his mind, his honor and his good repute," which apparently cannot be restricted, according to the draftsmen's intent, by any legislation. Placing the right to good repute on the same level as the right to life calls to mind our sages' statement: "Whoever insults his fellow man in the presence of others is considered as if he sheds blood". Today we call this "character assassination". (Concerning the rulings of Jewish law that stress the importance of the dignity of man among the legal values deserving of protection, see the study by Dr. N. Rakover, "The Protection of the Dignity of Man", volume 54 in the series of researches and articles on Jewish Law published by the Ministry of Justice.) Accordingly, if the right of free speech is a "superior right", how should we denominate man's right to the protection of his honor and good name? As for me, this illustrates the problematic aspect of any written declaration of rights. See the example given in Chafee, Free Speech in the United States, p. 31, of a man who was brought before a judge because he had thrown his arms about and struck someone in the nose. He asked the judge if he did not have a right to throw his arms about as he wishes in a free country, to which the judge replied: "Your right to throw your arms about ends precisely at the point at which your fellow man's nose begins".

    

                   I propose that we not be so captivated by the precedent in the New York Times case [18], which so strongly influenced my esteemed colleague's opinion. As said, it was there decided that one who publishes criticism of a public official concerning a public matter is not liable for slander, even if his statements are false, so long as the publication was made in good faith. Justices Black, Douglas and Goldberg went so far as to say that this also is the case even when the publication was malicious - all this to preserve the principle of freedom of speech and the press contained in the First Amendment to the Constitution, which has become, in the fundamentalist view of Justice Black and his followers, an iron cast rule that cannot be limited in any way. I am certain that had the Bill of Rights in America contained a provision similar to that in section 3 of the proposed Basic Law in this country - and I do not know why one's right to his good repute was not recognized as one of the citizen's rights - the American Supreme Court would not have established such a far reaching rule. Under that ruling one may impugn a public servant with no factual basis, for example, by saying that he accepted a bribe, unless (according to the majority view) the person defamed can prove that the slanderer acted with malice. Another American judge, Judge Friendly, has already commented on this in the Federal Court of Appeals in Pauling v. News Syndicate Co. [19]. He asks: if it is permitted to defame a public official for accepting a bribe, what is the difference between that and defaming a person for giving a bribe to the public official? And what about a person who is not a public official, but he takes part in debate on a matter of public importance during the course of which he defames another person? Is he the next in line to receive immunity for his statements? Indeed, in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia [20], the majority of the Federal Supreme Court expanded the New York - Times rule [18], so that it also includes a private person, provided that the slander relates to a matter of public interest. The truth is that the opinions given there are so varying that it is difficult to discover any clear line. Gertz v. Welch Inc. [21], which my colleague referred to at page 241, constitutes a retreat from that extreme majority view, but the decisions still contain a great deal of inconsistency and confusion.

      

            In the American legal literature, one hears criticism of and disagreement with the New York Times precedent. In an article, "Access to the Press - A New First Amendment Right" (1967) Harvard Law Review 1641, Professor Jerome A. Barron disputes the Supreme Court's decision and sees in its attitude to the First Amendment as assuring "a marketplace of ideas", a "romantic" notion that is totally unrealistic. (See pages 1642 and 1656 et seq.). The press and other mass media, which in our day and age are the main providers of information and opinion to the public, are not a free market, but are in the hands of a small group of monopolists. A realistic view of the First Amendment compels the conclusion that freedom of expression is somewhat slender if it can be exercised only by the grace of those who operate the mass communications media (id., at p. 1648). He therefore proposes to secure by law to any person who is attacked by a newspaper the right of access to the newspaper so that he may bring his position to the notice of the same readers before whom he was defamed (and not just by means of a letter to the editor, which the editor may publish or not as he wishes). If no such right will be recognized, there will be considerable inequality between the owners of a newspaper and the ordinary citizen.

 

            The ruling of the New York Times case [18], was not accepted in other countries where the common law applies. Fleming says on this subject in his "The Law of Torts", 4th edition, at p. 512:

           

          "...Our law does not esteem freedom of speech and of the press even in matters of public concern sufficiently high to clothe false statements of fact with qualified privilege, let alone elevate it to a constitutional guarantee as in the United States."

           

            Gatley on Libel and Slander, 7th edition, p. 223, dismisses the New York Times case [18], with the following comment:

           

          "It is submitted that so wide an extension of the privilege would do the public more harm than good. It would tend to deter sensitive and honourable men from seeking public positions of trust and responsibility and leave them open to others who have no respect for their reputation."

           

            In his detailed written summations Dr. Goldenberg, counsel for the Petitioners, sets out the laws of other common law countries throughout the world. Not one of these countries has adopted the American ruling. Mr. Lieblich, on behalf of the Respondents, did not deal with this particular matter. He restricted himself in his brief to a discussion of the legal questions that arise in Israeli and English law.

 

            In E.A. 1/65 [6], which was referred to above, Agranat J quoted with approval Witkon J's words in H.C. 253/64 [8], at p. 679:

           

"It is not an isolated phenomenon in the history of states having a well-functioning democratic regime that various fascist and totalitarian movements rose against them and used those very same rights of the freedom of speech, of the press and of association which the state accords them, to conduct their destructive activities under their protection. Those who saw this during the days of the Weimar Republic will not forget the lesson".

 

            It is worth recalling that one of the most effective means used by Hitler and his cronies to bring down the democratic Weimar regime in Germany was by the uncontrolled defamation of the heads of the state, by spreading lies about their conduct, while the courts did not respond approriately in the libel cases that were filed (on this matter see the article by David Riesman, "Democracy and Defamation: Fair Game and Fair Comment", (1942) Columbia Law Review 1085).

           

            This author's opinion is (id., at p. 1090):

           

"Whereas in Germany libel law was one of the cumulative factors in the Nazi triumph, in England there is evidence that the severity and impartiality with which the law of libel is enforced has measurably served to check the rise of demagogic fascism."

 

            These words contain a warning to those who are prepared to give excessive free reign and ignore the dissemination of libellous material against public persons, for fear that the protection of the right of free speech as an absolute value might be harmed. But one must be concerned that history might repeat itself. I have before me a copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois, of January 17, 1978, in the matter of The Village of Skokie v. The National Socialist Party, [22]. The court there allowed a march by the National Socialists bearing swastikas in a Chicago suburb with a large Jewish population. The judges felt themselves forced to decide as they did by the First Amendment to the Constitution. This should cause us to ponder the matter.

 

            Thus, one must find the correct point of balance between this principle and the protection of the honor of a public servant who is attacked. I do not propose, heaven forbid, to belittle the importance of the role of a free press to criticize governmental acts and to uncover undesirable public matters and bring them to the public attention. But I deny the assumption that a responsible press cannot carry out these functions unless it is given the freedom to defame persons under the cloak of "fair criticism".

           

            I have propounded these matters concerning the New York Times decision as if the subject before us was tabula rasa, without a solution in statutory law. But, in fact, that is not the case, because we have section 15(4) of the Law which contains a full answer concerning the defense of fair criticism for a publication that expresses an opinion concerning the conduct of a person who acts in a public function or in connection with a public matter. We must interpret this provision, enacted by the legislature, as it is written and in its spirit. Precedents from other countries may assist us in our deliberations, but we should not attribute to them undue weight. My esteemed colleague has interpreted our law narrowly, and in that regard I disagree. In my opinion, we should interpret this section just as any other provision of a statute, first and foremost according to the ordinary meaning of its words. Because of our differing approaches, our resulting interpretations differ, too. My esteemed colleague concludes his opinion by saying (at p. 268) that -

           

            "It is our task to maintain this defense [for expressing an opinion in good faith], in practice and according to the letter of the Law and its intention and the tendencies that lie at its base." (Emphasis added.)

           

            And there is no doubt that the tendency to preserve the "superior standing" of freedom of expression strongly influenced his restrictive interpretation of the protection given to an impugned person against defamatory matters published against him.

           

            I will now turn to the second part of my discussion and will begin by copying the language of section 15(4):

           

          "15. In a criminal or civil action for defamation, it shall be a good defence if the accused or defendant made the publication in good faith under any of the following circumstances:

            …

           

                 (4) the publication was an expression of opinion on the conduct of the injured party in a judicial, official or public capacity, in a public service or in connection with a public matter, or on his character, past actions or opinions, as revealed by such conduct".

           

            I believe that this section together with the matters set out in section 15 give us a proper solution to the problem of balancing the conflicting values of freedom of expression and the protection of a person's honor and good name.

           

            The language of the section teaches us that it provides a "good defense" for two types of expression of opinion.

           

(a) the expression of an opinion concerning the injured party's conduct in a judicial, official or public function, in a public service or in connection with a public matter.

 

(b) the expression of an opinion concerning the injured party's character, past actions or opinions, as revealed by such conduct.

 

            Grammatically, the concluding words "as revealed by such conduct" apply to the second situation only and not to the first. It is clear, however, that the two components are present in the first situation as well: the injured party's conduct (in a judicial. official or public capacity, in a public service or in connection with a public matter) on the one hand, and the expression of an opinion by the defendant, on the other hand. And it is essential that the defendant's opinion relate to the injured party's conduct. From the opening portion of section 15 it is clear that the publication of the expression of opinion must be made in good faith, but it need not be the truth, that is to say, factually accurate. If this were not the case, there would generally be no need for the special defense accorded by section 15(4) and all the other sub-clauses in section 15. Section 14 gives a full defense, in any event, for publication of a truthful opinion, if the publication is a matter of public interest. Only if there is no public interest in the publication does the publisher need the defense provided in section 15, if it is a true opinion.

 

            From the language of section 15(4), therefore, one learns that publications falling within its purview must contain the following true elements:

           

(a) reference to the injured person's conduct in a judicial, official or public capacity, or in connection with a public matter (or to his character, past actions or opinions, as revealed by such conduct) ;

 

(b) the expression of the accused or the defendant's opinion concerning one of the matters mentioned in (a).

 

            There is a basic difference between these true elements, in that element (a) must refer to correct facts, whereas with regard to (b), in certain situations the publisher has a defense against criminal and civil liabilty even if the expression of opinion was not the truth.

           

            As said, with regard to the description of the conduct, the publication must relate to true facts. On this matter there is already established precedent in this court interpreting the provisions of the 1965 law: C.A. 34/71 [9], at p. 528; C.A. 30/72 [l0], at p. 236. I am prepared to restrict this requirement as set forth by my esteemed colleague, Ben-Porat J, in her Opinion in the appeal which is the subject of this Further Hearing (at p. 284), that one must read into section 15 of the Law that portion of section 14 concerning the defense of truth: that the defense should not fail for the sole reason that the defendant was unable to prove the truth of an incidental detail that does not contain substantial injury. I also agree with my esteemed colleague (at p. 278) that the publisher must set forth at least the main facts on which his opinion is based. I would add that the publisher does not have to particularize facts which are in any event publicly known and which, therefore, need not be repeated in the publication which was made. However, I do not agree with my esteemed colleague's statement at p. 256:

           

"The question may be asked, what is the law when a factual assertion is intermingled with the expression of an opinion in respect of which the defense of good faith contained in section 15(4) is sought. The answer is that the circumstances set out in the various sections of section 15 classify the publication according to its dominant character. In other words, the type and category of the publication as establishing a fact or expressing an opinion will be determined by its essential nature that is divined from its general import in the eyes of a reasonable reader, and it will not lose its character as a publication expressing an opinion merely because some fact was included, if that does not change its essential feature as described."

 

            I do not find support for this in the language of sections 15 or 16, to which my colleague referred later on in his Opinion. At page 257, he relies upon the words of Justice Brennan in the New York Times case [18]. I have dealt extensively with that judgment. I will now add that in my opinion it is clearly contrary to the correct interpretation (which is not a restrictive construction) of the provisions in our law. I will add also that the New York Times case itself does not speak of the publication's dominant character, but permits the publication of inaccurate facts concerning a public figure without regard to the dominant nature of the publication.

           

            My colleague referred at this point in his Opinion to an inaccurate fact which has been intermingled with the expression of an opinion. I cannot accept this intermingling theory, in principle, because in my opinion any publication seeking the protection of section 15(4) must make a clear separation between the description of the facts and the expression of an opinion concerning those facts. The very mixing of these two elements might make the writing unclear and allow the insertion of libellous and untrue facts into the opinion. The writer must indicate on which facts he is relying, and these facts must be accurate (except for incidental facts that are not substantially harmful), and having set forth the facts, he may then draw his conclusions from them by way of expressing an opinion, provided he clarifies and distinguishes between a fact and an opinion. On this matter, I am prepared, together with my esteemed colleague, to adopt that part of Odger's book which she brings at page 277. If the setting forth of the facts is separated from the expression of opinion by way of conclusion drawn from those facts, it is as if the publisher says to the public that read or hear him: "These are the facts concerning this person's conduct and this is my opinion about that conduct. And now you, the reader, judge if you accept my opinion based on those facts". Such a presentation of matters is not forbidden by section 15(4), and if the opinion is expressed concerning one who fulfills a judicial, official or public function, or a person in the public service or in connection with a public matter, the injured person will have to accept the situation, even a wrong conclusion that the publisher has drawn from those facts, if the expression of opinion by way of drawing conclusions complies with the remaining requirements of the law. The remarks of an Australian judge on this topic, brought by Gatley at page 298, hit the mark:

 

"To state accurately what a man has done, and then to say that (in your opinion) such conduct is dishonourable or disgraceful, is a comment which may do no harm, as everyone can judge for himself, whether the opinion expressed is well founded or not. Misdescription of conduct, on the other hand, only leads to the one conclusion detrimental to the person whose conduct is misdescribed, and leaves the reader no opportunity for judging for himself the character of the conduct condemned, nothing but a false picture being presented for judgment." Per Windeyer J. in Christie v. Robertson (1889) 19 N.S.W.L.R. at p. 161 [17].

 

            From what I have just said in relation to the "dominance" theory, it is clear that I disagree not only with my esteemed colleague but also with Berinson J, who said (at p. 269):

           

"Finally, I agree that from a legal point of view the author would have done better to have separated facts from opinions, to have commenced with facts and ended with an opinion; and he did not do that. In one part of the article he also mixed and joined together facts and opinions. To my mind this is not significant. What is important is whether the article established an adequate factual foundation the conclusions expressed and the criticism contained in it.... I agree with Justice Shamgar's analysis of the facts and his finding that basically they are correct, and that any inaccuracies are of secondary importance."

           

            I understand from these remarks that Berinson J supports the idea of "dominance" in the publication. I will deal later on with the question whether these inaccuracies, which were intermingled with the opinion and the criticism, were indeed secondary in their importance.

           

            With regard to the defense under section 15(4), the Law does not recognize any distinction between the owner of the newspaper and its editor or any other person who makes a publication. The claim that the owner of a newspaper and its editor have superior standing was rejected in earlier stages of these proceedings, C.A. 213/69 [11], in which this Court struck out the claim of a defense under section 15(2), and held, based on the ruling in C.A. 90/49 [4], that the law applicable to newspapers is the same as that applicable to any other person, with regard to the duty of publication, that is to say, he may not rely on the defense under section 15(2) when such a defense is not available to another person. So, too, C.A. 552/73 [12]. And if a newspaper does not have superior standing with respect to section 15(2), then the same is true with regard to the defense for expression of opinion in good faith under section 15(4).

           

            With regard to the scope of the right to expression of opinion in good faith (as opposed to the presentation of the facts), I am prepared to accept Justice Brennan's remarks in the New York Times case [18], which my colleague cites (at pp. 244-245), that the debate concerning disputed public matters may be "uninhibited, robust and wide open". This is necessary so as not to stifle the free clarification of political and other disputes in which the public has an interest. Here, freedom of expression overrides the policy of protecting the individual's good name. But our law sets limits to this freedom. (a) The opinion must be expressed in good faith (the opening part of section 15) and (b) the publication must not exceed that which is reasonable in the circumstances set forth in section 15(4). And while requirement (b) appears in section 16, which deals with presumptions concerning good faith, one may derive from this a substantive requirement that the opinion expressed must also be reasonable. On this point I agree with the broad language that my esteemed colleague brought from the English cases:

 

"In this regard, it is sufficient that a reasonable man could have reached the defamatory conclusion from the facts set out in the publication, and that the facts upon which he relied were brought in the body of the publication".

 

            But once again, the facts on which the expression of opinion or criticism is based must be correct, and it is not sufficient that the weight of the accurate facts is dominant with regard to the inaccurate facts, in the total picture.

           

            My esteemed colleague said (at p. 262):

           

            "As explained above, the purpose [of sections 15 and 16 of the Law] is to open the door to criticisms and to protect them against defamation actions, even if it transpires that the opinions expressed are not founded on truth and even if the thinking expressed therein is not consistent with what the court considers logical."

 

            Dr. Goldenberg attacked this statement, but it seems that his criticism was based on a misunderstanding. My esteemed colleague spoke here (and he will certainly correct me if I have misunderstood him) only of the expression of an opinion "that is not grounded in the truth", and he did not intend to say that the facts upon which the opinion or the criticism was based need not be truthful. With that I too agree, provided that the expression of the opinion was honest and reasonable, (but I did not agree, as aforesaid, that it is sufficient if the dominant character of the factual basis for the criticism be truthful).

           

            I have now reached the last part of my Opinion, in which I will examine the publication which is the subject of the Petitioners' claim. The article was brought in its entirety at pages 230-23l and I will not set it out again. No one disputes any longer that the Respondents did not establish the truth of the statement in the article that "actually, the Electric Corporation is not really interested to get rid of the car. It hopes that after some time, when the public will have forgotten the incident, the car will be returned to serve the retiring Director General...." On the other hand, the Petitioners did not prove that the Respondents published the article's contents in bad faith. In this context it should be remembered especially that the fourth Respondent turned to the first Petitioner's spokesman before the publication occurred and asked for his reaction, but the latter refused to give any reaction (as a result whereof the Petitioner was awarded nominal damages in the amount of one pound only).

 

            Before I examine the contents of the article, I will dispose of Mr. Lieblich's claim that, since the majority judges in the appeal concluded that the article in its entirety was primarily a good faith expression of opinion, this is a finding of fact, and this court's practice is not to intervene in such findings in a Further Hearing, because Further Hearings are not intended to serve such a purpose, while on the other hand, it was proper for the majority judges to contradict the District Court's findings, because the question of classifying the article's contents is a question of law. Mr. Lieblich's claim is self-contradictory. It is correct that the question concerns the application of the law to the facts, and if the law was not interpreted correctly, then its application to the facts may contain a legal defect which can be corrected in an appeal and also in a Further Hearing. In my opinion, this is what happened in this case, because the majority opinion in the appeal contains novel holdings which ought not to be supported and they influenced the majority's interpretation of the provisions of the Law and, as a result thereof, also the way in which the Law was applied to the facts.

 

            I agree with my esteemed colleague that the question here is that of classification of the article's contents. The article charged that the Petitioners intended to mislead the public - to calm down the criticism of the purchase of an expensive car for the second Petitioner during a period of financial cutbacks by means of the fraudulent assertion that the car would be sold, whereas in fact this was merely a subterfuge, because their true intention was that the vehicle would be returned for the second Petitioner's use when the hue and cry will have died down.

Was the attribution of this intention to the Petitioners a factual claim - and a false fact - or was it only the expression of an opinion? My esteemed colleague concluded that based on the dominant character of the article, this was only an expression of opinion and Berinson J thought that the Respondents mixed fact and opinion together, but he did not consider that of any import.

 

            Dr. Goldenberg suggested a standard for distinguishing between determining facts and expressing an opinion (in paragraph 18 of his summations):

           

'"A fact' is not only a primary fact but also a factual conclusion, presented to the reader as a factual datum. 'The expression of an opinion,' by contrast, is the rendering of an expression of value, ('good', 'bad', 'appropriate', 'inappropriate', 'proper', 'improper', and the like), that is to say: the making of a normative value judgment on the facts in their widest sense (including factual conclusions)".

 

            This standard seems to me too narrow, because the attribution of this or that intent to the injured party, too, such as fraudulent intent, can be an expression of opinion by way of drawing a conclusion from the detailed facts, even if it is not a normative judgment. But, as I set out above, in order for the attribution of a particular intention to be the expression of opinion, the publisher must first set forth all the facts upon which he attributes that intent to the injured party. In this way, the expression of an opinion can also be correct or incorrect, true or false, whereas Dr. Goldenberg's standard of making a normative judgment does not state "correct or incorrect", but "appropriate or inappropriate" and the like.

           

            I will illustrate my words by reference to the contents of the article in issue: the attribution of fraudulent intent appears in true places, in the first part of the article and in its second part. The second part states, based on the facts previously brought out:

           

            "From this, the Goldberg agency's clerks concluded that the Electric Corporation was not interested in selling the car and was only interested in gaining time until the public furor would die down ...."

 

            In other words, the Goldberg agency clerks drew their conclusions from the facts which were set out and the fourth Respondent agrees with this conclusion. If that were all, I would have said that this is expression of an opinion concerning the corporation's intent, which does not necessarily have to be true for the Respondents to enjoy the protection of section 15(4), and all that remains to be done is to see whether the conclusion which was drawn is not unreasonable based on the facts set out. However - and this is the important point - there is also the first part of the article in which the writer states categorically that: "actually, the Electric Corporation is not really interested to get rid of the car". This is a clear finding of fact, that is the article's sting, without any factual foundation having been laid for it in what was said earlier. This part of the article gives the ordinary reader the impression that the writer has information on the basis of which he establishes it as a fact that the Corporation does not intend to sell the car. That is to say, he does not invite the reader to judge, based on facts which he has set out, whether it is reasonable to draw this conclusion, but the writer has already judged for himself, as it were on the basis of evidence which he does not disclose, and he encourages the reader to accept his judgment without exercising his own criticism. Such a presentation of fact is done at the writer's risk and if he is not able to establish its truth, he must bear the consequences. It is true that there also is the second part of the article in which the matters are presented as the conclusion drawn by the clerks at the Goldberg agency, with which the writer agrees, and that one should generally read the article in its entirey in order to discern its nature. But one must also remember that the ordinary reader of the newspaper does not analyze the material presented to him in great detail, but the general impression is what counts, and this impression is very much influenced by the order in which the matters are set forth. If a certain impression is created at the beginning of the article, it will not easily be erased by other matters which appear later. At the very least it may be said that this article mixed factual statements and the expression of opinion in a way that the reader cannot separate them - and this is sufficient ground on which to hold the respondents liable.

 

            On the basis of the above, I would set aside the judgment of the majority in the appeal and I would hold the Respondents liable, as did the District Court in its judgment.

           

            After writing this Opinion, I received a copy of Sir Zelman Cowen's book "Individual liberty and the Law" published by Eastern Law House, Calcutta & Oceana Publications Inc., Dobbs Ferry, New York. This is a collection containing the Tagori Lectures that the author presented at the University of Calcutta. The learned author (who is now the Governor General of Australia) discusses in these lectures the fundamental problem of preserving the individual's right to his good name and privacy as against the freedom of the press. I have no doubt that this book will become a leading book on this subject. I note with some satisfaction that much of what I have said here accords with this authority's opinion. (And as chance would have it, the title for the first part of the book is "The Right to Wave My Arm"). The perusal of the chapters in the book that cite extensive authorities that were not before me has broadened my understanding and deepened my thinking concerning the matters we have dealt with in this Further Hearing. There is no room here to describe even its principal contents. The reader will find there a complete analysis of the American decisions, beginning with New York Times v. Sullivan [18], in a very critical light. The author's conclusion is that the publication of that opinion was no occasion for "dancing in the streets", as one American professor suggested (see pp. 47, 63). After studying this important book, I am reinforced in my view that we stand in this matter at a parting of the ways between the permissive American approach, which is liable to lead us astray, and the healthier approach that prevails in all other common law countries and that is in accord with our laws.

 

            Kahan J: I agree.

           

            Etzioni J: I respectfully concur fully with my esteemed colleague, the Deputy President's judgment, in its entirety. However, in light of the very wide ranging arguments which my esteemed colleagues Shamgar and Ben-Porat JJ have set forth, and of the new and far reaching precedents which were established in C.A. 723/74, as the Deputy President notes, I find it proper to add a few remarks of my own, particularly with regard to the question whether the principle of freedom of expression is superior to the right of a person to his good name, in the hope that I will not detract thereby from the Deputy President's comprehensive remarks.

           

            In C.A. 30/72 [l0], which the Deputy President has referred to, I discussed the strict rules of Jewish law concerning a man's right to the protection of his good repute, as expressed in the well known sentence from the book of Ecclesiastes: "Better a good name than good profits". I also quoted there from Maimonides, Laws Concerning Beliefs, chapter 9, that a person who disparages his friend, even when saying the truth, nevertheless commits an act of speaking with an evil tongue. Still, I set out there that a public person is subject to public criticism and exposure. And in Cr.A. 364/73 [13], I expressed my opinion that the judiciary, too, is not immune from this criticism. In that judgment, which concerned a person who was charged with criminal contempt of a judge, I said:

 

"There is often a clash between two principles in this matter. One is the principle of respecting the judicial system while the other is freedom of expression and criticism, including criticism of the judicial system and the judges".

 

And I added:

 

"It is not always easy to tell which principle to prefer in each case. And if from time to time it turns out that a judge suffers unfair criticism, well this is the unavoidable price of the democracy in which we live. Only in totalitarian countries does the citizen not dare to criticize the regime and the courts."

 

And, further on, I said:

 

"Such criticism must be fair, restrained and based on the issues. Nevertheless, it should not be silenced when from time to time it crosses the bounds of good taste".

 

            I have quoted the above matter so as to show that I am not lightly disposed to limit the citizen's and the press' right of criticism regarding the acts of public figures, including judges themselves, as long as such criticism is within accepted bounds of fairness. As for me, I see no conflict between these two principles of freedom of expression and criticism and the protection of a person's good name.

           

            I expanded on this matter in another case, C.A. 552/73 [12], where the question arose whether the award of high sums of damages for defamation might repress freedom of the press. I allow myself to repeat what I said on that occasion:

           

"I am far from denigrating the importance of the existence of a free press in Israel. However, when is that the case - when this freedom is not abused. When we speak of the freedom of the press, we mean principally the freedom to publish a clear and true account of events that occur in the country and the ability to criticize them freely, without fear of official censureship on political or other grounds. However, this freedom is not a license to issue defamatory material without any factual basis".

 

And I also added there:

 

"If the newspaper crosses the boundary of reasonableness, it can no longer enjoy any privilege by claiming that the imposition of heavy damages could harm freedom of the press."

 

            It is clear, therefore, that there is no ground to prefer the principle of freedom of expression over that of a person's right to his good name.

           

            And if there be any need to cite additional authority beyond that which my esteemed colleague has brought, I find such in the rules of professional ethics that were adopted by the Press Council and were set out in the Annual Book of Journalism, 5738-1978, in an article by Advocate Rotenstreich, "Guarding Freedom of the Press." I quote three of those rules, numbers 1, 3 and 6:

           

"1. Freedom of the press and expression are man's basic rights, a cornerstone of his freedom and his rights in a democratic society. This right achieves its fullest and most comprehensive expression to the extent that journalists remember and take care to preserve their moral duty to truth and accuracy in the collection of information and its distribution - and by considering the acts, the thoughts and the sensibilities of the public."

 

"3. The journalist's and the newspaper's calling is to furnish to the public reliable information and interpretation which accords with the facts."

 

"6. Ridicule, inciting against a person and unfounded accusations - for example, on the basis of personal, national, ethnic, religious or racial background - are serious offenses for journalists. The journalist and the newspaper must respect every person's good name and private and family life.

 

If the publication has injured someone's honor and good name, he should be given the opportunity to publish a reply. The journalist and the newspaper must be particular concerning accuracy and to prevent the reader from drawing wrong conclusions." (Emphasis added - M.E.)

 

            From these provisions we see that even those who are particularly concerned to protect freedom of the press do not adhere to the principle that this freedom has superior status, but take particular care that a journalist who publishes his words to the public will exercise his legitimate and desired right of public criticism without belittling his other duty, to be exacting in preserving the facts that are the basis of such criticism.

           

            As my esteemed colleague the Deputy President has already pointed out, the Respondents in this case did not comply with this duty, and I therefore agree with his opinion, with all due respect.

           

            Ben-Porat J: There remains for me only to concur in the opinion of my esteemed colleague the Deputy President. His remarks complete what I omitted in my own remarks in the original hearing.

           

            I also concur in the remarks made by my esteemed colleague Etzioni J.

           

            Shamgar J: 1. I have read with interest the remarks of my esteemed colleague, the Deputy President, which represent the majority view in this Further Hearing, and out of respect to the position taken by my esteemed colleagues, I have also reexamined my own judgment in C.A. 73/74 (hereinafter - the previous hearing). My conclusion is that I disagree with the views expressed by my esteemed colleagues in this Further Hearing and I do not see my way clear to change the views I expressed in the previous hearing.

           

            2. The text of the article and the facts of the event will not be set out here once again, although their study is, of course, an essential condition for the evaluation of the substance of the publication that is the subject of this case, its connection to the proven facts, the classification of its parts - whether as facts or as the expression of opinion to which section 15(4) of the law applies - and the drawing of conclusions concerning proof of the existence of any of the circumstances specified in section 16(b) of the Law which deal with presumptions of lack of good faith.

           

            It is unnecessary to add that I also will not repeat here in detail my conclusions and my thoughts which were set out extensively in the judgment in the previous hearing, and for the reasons therefore, I refer the reader to what I said in the previous hearing.

           

            Since the inquiry in this Further Hearing has been very widespread, and in order to fix correct bounds, it will not be superfluous, I think, to state that we deal here with a defined segment of the law forbidding defamation, that is - a publication that relates to a matter of public interest and deals with the conduct of an official or public functionary.

           

            3. My esteemed colleague, the Deputy President, disagrees with my stand, as he says, in these three respects:

           

(a) The preferred status granted by our law, in my opinion, to the right of freedom of expression.

 

(b) The meaning of the provisions of the Law Forbidding Defamation, 5725-1965 (hereinafter - the Law) in general and of section 15(4), especially and primarily the manner in which those provisions should be interpreted.

 

(c) The application of the defense set forth in section 15(4) of the Law to the article which is the subject of this litigation.

 

            4.As I have said, the majority of my esteemed colleagues disagree with my basic position, which I set forth in the previous judgment and according to which -

         

   "the previously described character of freedom of expression as one of the fundamental constitutional rights gives it superior legal status. The obligation to maintain this right serves as a guideline to fashion and shape laws and to test the legality of acts of the authorities. This also has consequences for the legal interpretation of every written law. Any limitation on the boundaries of this right and of its extent, which arises from legislation, will be narrowly construed so as to give the aforesaid right maximum scope and not to restrict it in the slightest beyond what is clearly and expressly required by the legislature's words.... Freedom of expression and a provision of law that limits it do not have equal and identical standing, but rather, to the extent consistent with the written law, one should always prefer the maintenance of the right over a provision of law that tends to limit it. In sum, the standard of judgment that establishes the protection of freedom of expression as the primary consideration when it clashes with another right should be given full expression, not only when the legislature enacts the law's provisions, but also in the interpretation of the law and the application of its provisions to circumstances in which its actual essence and performance are tested in practice" (Emphasis added - M.S.).

 

            It follows that acceptance of this legal point of departure, that recognition of the basic freedoms is an essential part of the law in Israel. entails the conclusion that the basic freedoms are part of the law. as per their name and their purpose, that is to say, as basic rules that guide and give structure to forms of thought and legal interpretation and influence them by their spirit and direction. The result is, among other things, that to the extent that the matter can be reconciled with the written law, one should always prefer the existence of freedom of expression as opposed to its limitation and restraint. It goes without saying that I agree that when a court is called upon to interpret the provisions of a law that has implications for freedom of speech, the court may not declare that the law is void if it contains express and unequivocal provisions that forbid the exercise of that right or establish a specific limitation on it, in particular circumstances. But whenever the legislature's words leave room for interpreting the law one way or another, that is whenever the modes of interpretation allow a choice between a strict interpretation that tips the scales in favor of curtailing freedom of expression and an alternative liberal method, then the second method should be adopted, which will protect and establish freedom of expression to the extent possible.

 

            My esteemed colleague, the Deputy President, is not ready to lend his hand to this approach, and as he hinted, his attitude derives, to a certain extent, from the difficulties inherent, in his opinion, in any written declaration of rights, that is to say, from his doubts concerning the necessity of giving constitutional standing to the basic rights.

           

            In this context, freedom of expression has been called "an unwritten right", but this does not reduce its legal standing in any way. Our Israeli common law has not yet been transformed into written law, and despite legislative efforts to convert unwritten principles into written rules, it should be assumed that there will remain legal precedents that do not find expression in any particular legislative enactment. As is well known, this does not in any way detract from their standing in our system of law.

 

            In taking exception to the standard for interpretation which I set forth in my Opinion, the Deputy President refers, among other things, to the remarks of my esteemed colleague, Kahan J, in F.H. 27/76 [3]:

           

"When the legislator has expressed his view in clear terms in a particular law, the court must interpret that law according to its plain import and the legislator's intent".

 

            With all due respect, this is not at all the question before us in this case: so long as this court has no power of constitutional review, it is obvious that a clear and unequivocal statutory provision must be interpreted according to its plain import and meaning, even if that law curtails a basic freedom. The standard or the guideline to which I referred above becomes important, as I explained, when the matters are not clear and unequivocal, when the text of the law allows room for judicial discretion and when the question arises in this connection, what is that intention that should be read into the legislature's words.

           

            More particularly, the legislature did not lay down unequivocally that any person who transmits a fact inaccurately, whether slight or serious, important or marginal, substantive or irrelevant, will always be liable for having committed a tortious act, without more. Were that the case, there would be no place for the thesis I have set forth. But that is not the way in which the legislature works. It defined defamation but also set up frameworks to clarify and to classify published matter, it established the importance of good faith and created defenses and mitigations which would apply to different publications, even though they are defamatory. Among other things, the legislature defined those circumstances which will raise a presumption that the publication was not done in good faith and opened the door thereby, that the opposite conclusion will be drawn on certain facts. These special defenses are a clear sign that, in certain circumstances, the legislature chose to prefer freedom of expression even though the publication injures someone's honor.

           

            This reflects a basic approach which, in my opinion, should be extended and applied whenever the court concerns itself with the interpretation of the Law or the meaning of a publication, as for example, when writings that criticize a public authority can be understood both as expressing an opinion and as stating a fact. To sum up my view, I can best refer once again to part of those quotations which were brought by my esteemed colleague in his Opinion from Olshan J (as was his title then) in C.A. 90/49 [4], which include the following selection:

           

            "Therefore, the law distinguishes between ordinary cases in which defamatory material is published and exceptional cases, in which the public good is preferred over the individual's right, even if this causes a certain amount of injustice to the individual."

 

            So, too, Agranat J's view (as was his title then) in Cr. A. 24/50 [5], at p. 1160:

           

"The law recognizes that, in certain particular circumstances, the public good requires that a person not be punished for distributing defamatory material, so that the above-mentioned basic right [freedom of expression - M.S.] not be emptied of all content, because the danger of harm that would be caused to the public by over-restriction of freedom of speech and writing is given preferred consideration over the injury to one individual."

 

            And in H.C. 73/53 [1], Agranat J called freedom of expression a superior freedom that is a condition precedent to the exercise of almost all the other freedoms.

           

            I do not disagree with my esteemed colleague that one must distinguish between freedom and anarchy and that certain freedoms must be qualified, in given circumstances and conditions, for the public good. However, the question always is where to draw the line and what is the proper guideline for marking the limits. It may not be inferred from my esteemed colleague's remarks, which appear to set up a person's right to his honor and his good name as paramount to the right of freedom of expression, that he believes that it is always forbidden to publish a libel, regardless of the circumstances. For that would render the provisions in the Law that establish defenses when the published words are defamatory empty of all content. So, too, one should not infer from the protected and preferred status given to freedom of expression that it may never be qualified in the slightest.

           

            To sum up, when the law provides defenses whereby, in specified circumstances, things said or written will not be regarded an offense or a tort even though their content is defamatory, the basic approach takes on great importance: whether it is severe, restrictive and guided by a narrowing yardstick, that seeks to impose the fear of the law on marginal cases, such as those which we will deal with shortly, in which insignificant and unimportant inaccuracies have been intermingled in the writing that is essentially the expression of opinion concerning the improper conduct of a public functionary. Or, perhaps we should interpret the writing - to the extent possible - liberally, and perceive the defenses defined in the written law as an expression of a desire not to harm or impede the free expression of criticism concerning public matters, beyond the necessary minimum.

           

            5. The majority Opinion expresses the view that, instead of giving interpretive superior status to the principle of freedom of expression, one should undertake "a process of balancing the competing values on the scales and choosing among them". This does not provide an answer to the question how one should interpret the provisions of a given law. The process of balancing competing values describes the starting line of interpretation, but it does not provide criteria or value weights with which to do the work of interpretation. Furthermore, I fear that the result of comparing values without setting forth criteria for evaluating their respective weights will be that, in each case, the court will apply whatever criterion appears appropriate in the circumstances, according to the best understanding of the particular panel that happens to be sitting. In other words, the decisional framework which contains a guideline of value, namely, the object of maintaining a fundamental freedom, will be exchanged and replaced by an unpredictable paternalistic and arbitrary framework. With all due respect, this is most unsatisfactory, and I am certain that it also will not bring about clear and consistent decisions.

 

            6. For the purpose of emphasis and clarification, my esteemed colleague referred to the German experience, that is to say, the theory that the weakness of the German law of defamation during the period of the democratic Weimar regime that preceded Hitler was used by the enemies of democracy as a very effective weapon to undermine democratic regime. For support, he referred to the article by David Rieisman which was published in the Columbia Law Review in 1942. It seems to me that the long period that has passed since then has given us a wider historical perspective for the understanding of the many and varied factors that led to the rise of the Nazi regime in Germany and I am certain that a broader analysis, today, would disclose that the relative importance of the German libel laws in this context, as opposed to other factors and elements, was not great. However, the principal matter is that one must be cautious when it comes to imposing restraints on freedoms merely because a totalitarian movement of one type or another managed to take advantage of such restraints for its nefarious purposes. Such an approach, itself, can lead to dangerous and far reaching conclusions. It is better to avoid analogies whose relationship and similarity to our political and social realities and our system of law are flimsy and slight, particularly when this very month two foreign journalists were put on trial in Moscow for defaming officials of the Soviet broadcasting authority.

           

            I only repeat what is well known, from the statement of one of the great men of the generation, when I conclude my discussion of this point by saying that the democratic system of government has many weaknesses, one of which undoubtedly is that the freedoms it allows can be used by persons of evil intent. But, at the same time, we accept the fact that we have yet to find any better system of government, be it for the individual, for society as a whole, or for the proper balancing of the needs and the rights of both.

           

            7. I will now proceed to the second question, namely, what is the correct interpretation of the Law. At the beginning of his discussion of this topic, my esteemed colleague refers to the defenses which the Law provides. But it should be emphasized here that we are not talking about defenses for the protection of the injured party, as might be understood from his discussion and his conclusions, since he considers my interpretation to be narrowing. By calling chapter 3 of the Law "Permitted Publications, Defenses and Mitigations", the legislator intended to refer to publications permitted to the publisher and defenses and mitigations for the defendant and not for the plaintiff.

           

            However, the conflict between us does not rest on the question of whether my interpretation is narrowing or widening. All that I sought to express in my Opinion in the previous hearing was that the text of our Law, including section 15(4), is consistent with the basic precepts which I put forward and does not conflict with them, and that it can be interpreted so as to preserve its fundamental purpose, namely, to forbid the publication of defamation while providing proper protection for those publications that are essential to the existence of a free society .

           

            The judgment in the Sullivan case [18], as any other foreign precedent, could not have been cited by myself as a binding precedent and the description of its holdings was a presentation of the views and basic tendencies accepted in this field in the United States, which I proposed be adopted because they are consistent with our own written law. In other words, our legal criterion in this matter is exhausted by sections 15 and 16 of the Law, but it is up to us to decide what content to give to this legislation and what meaning to attribute to it.

           

My esteemed colleague said, among other things that -

 

   "we stand in this matter at a parting of the ways between the permissive American approach, which is liable to lead us astray, and the healthier approach that prevails in all other common law countries and that is in accord with our laws".

 

            With all due respect, I disagree with the assertion that there is a unitary accepted approach to this matter in the common law countries other than the United States. And precisely Sir Zelman Cowen's book, to which the esteemed Deputy President referred, cites the varied tendencies and views, that often contradict each other. (Compare, for example, the conflicting proposals concerning the status of newspapers with regard to the law of libel and the conclusions of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, 1968, with those of the Shawcross Committee (The Law and the Press, 1965).) But furthermore, I would not incline to give approbation to the English libel laws, which only recently it was stressed require correction (see the report of 1975) and as to which Lord Diplock previously said:

           

          "...the law of defamation... has passed beyond redemption by the courts."

           

            8.         With regard to the interpretation of section 15(4) of the Law, in my opinion, the dispute turns primarily on one issue, namely, the significance of the incorporation of secondary factual allegations within a publication that is primarily (dominantly) the expression of an opinion. Still, I conclude that my esteemed colleague did not see fit to adopt the rest of the lower court's conclusions in this matter, with which I disagreed, viz.:

           

(a) that the concepts good faith and truth are always linked together with regard to the protection against libel, which, in my opinion, contradicts the provisions of section 16(b) of the Law, and

 

(b) it appears from the District Court's analysis of the issues that every expression of opinion must meet the test of reasonableness in the eyes of the court that sits in judgment, that is to say, it is not the departure from the bounds of reasonableness in expressing the opinion in the circumstances of the case that determines, but the general reasonableness of the opinion in the eyes of the court.

 

            My esteemed colleague correctly states with regard to (a) above, that the expression of an opinion need not necessarily be the truth - that is to say, factually correct - else generally there would be no need for the special defense provided by section 15(4) of the Law.

           

            We will not deal with his remarks concerning item (b) above.

           

            On the other hand, he disagrees with the following matters said in the previous judgment at p. 256:

           

"The question may be asked, what is the law when a factual assertion is intermingled with the expression of an opinion in respect of which the defense of good faith contained in section 15(4) is sought? The answer is that the circumstances set out in the various sections of section 15 classify the publication according to its dominant character. In other words, the type and category of the publication as establishing a fact or expressing an opinion will be determined by its essential nature that is divined from its general import in the eyes of a reasonable reader, and it will not lose its character as a publication expressing an opinion merely because some fact was included, if that does not change its essential feature as described."

 

In this context, my esteemed colleague says:

 

"I do not find support for this in the language of sections 15 or 16, to which my colleague referred later on in his Opinion."

 

            According to my scheme, it is not necessity to seek support for this particular point in the words of sections 15 or 16. The yardsticks set forth in section 15 of the Law should be interpreted according to their substance and their clear direction, and in a manner so as not to draw from the text unnecessary strictness. Moreover, the presumptions created by the legislature in section 16 and the imposition of the burden of proof which derives therefrom support the opinion that the legislature intended to relax the publisher's burdens, if he acts without malice. Therefore, the mingling of a factual detail in a publication which is by its dominant nature an expression of opinion need not be interpreted in a limiting fashion, and it would appear from further on in his Opinion that my esteemed colleague treated an ancillary fact in the publication in the same manner, without relying on a specific provision in the written law.

 

            Incidentally, one can find expression of a similar approach in the current opinion in England and, I referred in this context, for the purposes of comparison, to section 6 of the Defamation Act, 1952, and also, to no little extent, to the remarks of Denning J in Slim v. The Daily Telegraph [15], to which I will refer again later on.

           

            I am also pleased that my esteemed colleague agrees that the defense under section 15 is not lost merely because the defendant does not prove the truth of an ancillary fact that is not seriously harmful, even though that section of the Law does not contain an express provision to this effect. Were the Law to be interpreted strictly, on the basis of its express provisions alone, one would have to conclude from the inclusion of such a provision in section 14, on the one hand, and its exclusion from section 15 which concerns us here, that such an ancillary fact would in fact undermine the defense.

           

            It is unnecessary to add that this interpretive difficulty does not arise according to my method.

           

            I incline to conclude that the difference between my esteemed colleague's approach on this particular point and mine is not a conflict of principle but stems from the difference between establishing the principle and applying it.

           

            Essentially, one's basic approach bears on the evaluation of the significance of the intermingling of a factual detail in the expression of an opinion. publications concerning public matters are not always written in the same manner as one would prepare a legal opinion or legislation, and the application to them of a picayune yardstick that demands strict compartmentalization of fact and opinion and judges every slight deviation harshly could impose a heavy burden on freedom of expression. I agree that this strict view was stated expressly in the 1911 edition of Odgers, but I believe that since then we have seen the first signs of a more liberal approach. perhaps it would be correct if I quote once again Denning L.J.'s words in Slim v. Daily Telegraph Ltd. [15], at p. 503:

           

            "...These comments are capable of various meanings.... One person may read into them imputations of dishonesty, insincerity and hypocrisy .... Another person may only read into them imputations of inconsistency and want of candour .... In considering a plea of fair comment, it is not correct to canvass all the various imputations which different readers may put on the words. The important thing is to determine whether or not the writer was actuated by malice. If he was an honest man expressing his genuine opinion on a subject of public interest, then no matter that his words conveyed derogatory imputations: no matter that his opinion was wrong or exaggerated or prejudiced; and no matter that it was badly expressed so that other people read all sorts of innuendoes into it; nevertheless, he has a good defence of fair comment. His honesty is the cardinal test. He must honestly express his real view. So long as he does this, he has nothing to fear, even though other people may read more into it .... I stress this because the right of fair comment is one of the essential elements which go to make up our freedom of speech. We must ever maintain this right intact. It must not be whittled down by legal refinements. When a citizen is troubled by things going wrong, he should be free to 'write to the newspaper': and the newspapers should be free to publish his letter. It is often the only way to get things put right."

 

            And at page 198 of the judgment in London Artists [16], which I also referred to in my previous judgment, Denning J categorized a particular letter as a combination of facts or as opinion on the basis of -

           

            "... a fair reading of the whole letter ...",

           

a yardstick which I would adopt in the matter before us.

 

            9. I now come to the third topic, the interpretation of the article itself:

           

            With regard to the factual inaccuracies in the article, I can do no more than repeat my previous remarks at page 263 of the original judgment, as follows:

           

"Even if these ancillary facts contain inaccuracies, these are so secondary in their meaning and their importance that there is nothing in them to change the writer's conclusion: similarly, I fail to grasp the importance of the claim that since the car was returned to the Goldberg agency on 29.11.1966 (not immediately after the Respondent's public statement of 8.11.1966) it was in the agency's custody only for three and a half months instead of 'more than four months', as said in the article; so, too, it is of no importance that it was not 'the agency's clerks' who drew the conclusion described in the article, but only one clerk, since this particular clerk was the one directly responsible for carrying out the assignment to sell the car, who dealt with the matter directly until he concluded what he concluded and reported that his assignment was finished. Who was more familiar with the matter than he and more competent to communicate his impressions of the matter? The court concluded that his statements were not merely some malicious irrational personal speculation when it learned that many of the Electric Corporation's employees also thought that the offer to sell the car was a bluff. The factual description of the offers for sale which preceded the publication of the article is well founded and the lower court made no finding rejecting Mr. Sapir's testimony on this point. Moreover, Mr. Goldberg's letter of 15.3.1967, on which the Respondents relied, shows that there were offers from car dealers, 'who thought they could get the car at this price,' and the price set forth in the letter is 24,000-25,000 Israeli pounds."

 

            Given the light weight of these inaccuracies, the defense of good faith set forth in section 16 of the Law applies to this article, as I said at pages 264-266 of my judgment:

           

"With regard to section 16(b)(1): in the light of Mr. Amir's testimony, there is no basis to attribute to the fourth Appellant the lack of faith in the publication's truthfulness. On the contrary, Mr. Amir apparently believed sincerely in the truth of his impression and conclusions and conveyed them to the fourth Appellant.

 

 The lower court was of the opinion that this did not add an aura of veracity to the author's conclusion, but that is not so. The circumstances as a whole gave Mr. Amir's story the image of truth and reason, since the corporation had shown no initiative and outstanding passivity in everything related to the sale: no offers of sale were published in the press and no notice of tenders was announced, no price was fixed for the car by the Respondents, the offers made received no attention and no attempt was made to negotiate with the bidders in order to persuade them to raise their offers. Instead of cleaning the car, which was covered by dust, to impress potential purchasers, it was confined, to the Respondents' knowledge, in a warehouse in which it disappeared completely from view and the passing time reduced the prospects of selling it. In this last connection, it was immaterial whether the beginning of the 1968 model year had already arrived, or whether it was a few months off, as, in any event, the natural passage of time, if not halted, brought the former event closer every day, and the aging process of the car, which was a 1966 model, continued to progress. All of these facts, which were mentioned in part in the article, gave Mr. Amir's words the appearance of authenticity, and this had direct implications concerning the conclusion as to the author's good faith.

 

Nor can one charge the fourth Appellant with failing to take reasonable measures to discover whether the publication was true, since he approached the first Respondent whose spokesman refused to speak to him. The lower court was of the opinion that since the fourth Appellant was well aware of the reasons for this refusal, he should have sought alternative sources of information in order to fulfil the obligation set forth in section 16(b) (2). I do not see any basis for this opinion. The corporation's refusal, whatever its real reason may have been, could only have added to the suspicions in the circumstances, and that is a considered risk which anyone who refuses to react must take. Whoever approaches a public authority with a request to react is not obliged to interpret silence on the part of the authority to its advantage, but is entitled to suspect that there is something behind it. In any event, anyone who refuses to react cannot complain afterwards that the publisher did not find an alternative source of information to circumvent the barrier he himself created by his refusal.

 

The court is not one of the contesting parties but must examine whether the presumption of good faith arises or whether the Plaintiff has succeeded to rebut it, and to this end it has at its disposal the criteria laid down by Law. From the wording of section 16(b)(2) it follows, inter alia, that the plaintiff may try to prove the absence of good faith by producing evidence that the publisher 'had not, prior to publishing it [the matter published] taken reasonable steps ascertain whether it was true or not'. But this provision of the Law does not merely provide a way to rebut the presumption. It also provides ground to infer that if the Defendant took steps in advance to ascertain whether the matter published was true or not, that is a sign that he has passed one of the good faith tests, and the defense remains valid as long as it is not rebutted in one of the other ways laid down in section 16(b)."

 

            With regard to section 16(b)(2), my esteemed colleague commented on the fact that the fourth Respondent sought to speak with the first Petitioner's spokesman, but he refused to react and he noted that, as a result thereof, the first Petitioner was awarded damages in the amount of one pound only.

           

            But the proofs in the lower court also indicated that the second Petitioner is the person who gave the order not to reply to the Respondent's approach, but for some reason the lower court did not draw any conclusion in connection with that.

           

            10. The majority Opinion and I disagree whether to categorize a certain sentence in the article as fact or opinion ("actually, the Electric Corporation is not really interested to get rid of the car") and over the significance of mixing finding facts with the expression of opinions. I viewed this sentence as the expression of an opinion, that arises as a conclusion from the facts given in the earlier part of the publication, whereas my esteemed colleagues regard it as a factual claim. As to my view of the matter, I can do no better than to refer once again to what I said at page 264 of my previous decision and to the selection quoted above from the judgment in Slim [15], according to which, the substance of the publication should be judged, among other things, after a fair reading of the whole.

 

            11. To sum up the matter, the stricter standards which my esteemed colleagues have adopted as the test for examining factual inaccuracies and the interpretation with regard to classification of some of the matters set forth above, causes the majority to find fault with the publication at issue.

           

            I regret this for two reasons:

           

            First, I fear that this may be interpreted as a restraint and limitation on the principles concerning freedom of expression which have been crystallized in our legal system ever since the establishment of the State and particularly since the decision in the Kol Ha'am case [1]. Second, the failings which are uncovered from time to time in our public service are not rarities and not infrequently the citizen faces obstinacy, bureaucratic arrogance, indifference, and an unwillingness to practice fiscal economy and even worse. Efficient and free criticism of the conduct of public authorities, including the government companies that provide public services, is an essential means for correcting these improper practices. If the citizen fears that the every factual inaccuracy, no matter how trivial or slight, might involve him in legal proceedings, and that every doubt that arises from his text will be interpreted strictly, he will be in fear of those who control unlimited funds in the public purse to conduct their litigation, he will not dare to protest and the criticism will be stifled before it has been uttered. The yardsticks for the limits of permitted criticism of those holding official or public office which have been adopted in the United States and whose underlying approach - as distinguished from its detailed application - can be adopted in my opinion within the framework of our written law, were not created in a vacuum. They are not the fundamentalistic views of judges of the school of Justices Black and Douglas, because it was not their opinion that prevailed in the Sullilvan case [18]. This conclusion arises from the need to create efficient checks and proper balances in a free society against the development, and even victory, of those who would take wrongful advantage of the powers and authority of public office, because the private citizen dares not to open his mouth. It is unnecessary to add that the public does not only feed on abstract declarations concerning the existence and importance of basic freedoms, but it is also awake to their actual application in practice. The Supreme Court of the United States was aware, therefore, of the risk that arises from the blocking of criticism beyond the extent required by the law, however pure the motives may be. In the words of Sussman J (as his title was then) in H.C. 206/61 [14], at p. 1728:

 

"True democracy will be measured especially by the standard whether criticism will be published and heard, for without that, the regime of parliamentary democracy will fall into an abyss".

 

            What I have said here concerning the essential role of criticism applies, of course, to the bureaucratic system in general, and the fact is that in this case before us, too, the Petitioners altered their original decisions only as a result of the criticism that was expressed in the press. It matters not one iota that they were unwilling to admit at any stage that they had in fact erred. Restraint of criticism based on picayune demands concerning ancillary factual matters may create serious dangers far in excess of those which could result from the mixing of inaccurate ancillary facts into an article whose dominant character is legitimate criticism of the conduct of a public official in the performance of his duties, and which did not exceed the bounds of fair comment in those circumstances.

           

            Accordingly I would dismiss the Petition.

           

            Decided, by majority opinion, to void the judgment of the majority in the Appeal and to hold the Respondents liable as did the District Court. The Respondents are to pay, jointly, to the Petitioners, costs in the sum of IL30,000, in the Appeal and the Further Hearing together.

           

            Judgment given on 24 Av 5738 (August 27, 1978).

CHESHIN J. giving the judgment of the court. On December 6, 1948, an order nisi was issued by this court calling upon the respondents to appear and show cause why they should not be restrained from placing the petitioner on trial before the Special Tribunal of the Defence Army of Israel on a charge of murder under section 214(b) of the Criminal Code Ordinance. 1936, and section 97 of the Army Code, 1948, and why they should not release the petitioner from custody.

           

2. The facts, as detailed in the affidavit of the petitioner, are not in dispute, and may be summarised shortly as follows:

 

            The petitioner, Shmuel Lahisse, an officer of the rank of first lieutenant, served in the Defence Army of Israel as a Company Commander. On November 12, 1948, he was arrested by order of the prosecutor of "A" Command, and was charged with the murder of a number of persons in the village of Hula, Lebanon, on October 31, 1948, and November 1, 1948.

           

            On December 2, 1948, the petitioner was brought to trial before the Special Tribunal of the Defence Army of Israel sitting in Haifa. After the charge had been read to him, but before he had pleaded to the charge, his counsel submitted that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the offences charged, as it was clear from the information itself that the acts constituting the offence had been carried out beyond the borders of Palestine and, therefore, outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal. The tribunal, by majority decision, dismissed this contention, and counsel for the petitioner requested an adjournment in order to enable them to apply to this court for a ruling on the question of jurisdiction. The tribunal held unanimously, "that there is no justification for acceding to the request of the Defence", but it adjourned the hearing to another date - in its own words - "as an exception and having regard to the unusual matter arising in this case and the serious penalty to which the accused" (the petitioner) "will be liable in the event of his conviction". At the same time the tribunal hinted, in the course of its decision, that ''the Defence is entitled to make use of this delay for the taking of such steps as it sees fit". The accused then petitioned this court and, as above stated, an order nisi was issued.

 

3. Before considering in detail the principal submissions of counsel for the parties we would like to refer, although the matter may not be strictly relevant, to the following point, because it is one that gives rise to much discussion in cases of this nature. The point is this : In section 10 of his petition the petitioner submits that "the decision of the Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice... binds all the courts in the country, including military tribunals". Mr. Cohn, the State Attorney, who appears on behalf of the respondents, does not deny the soundness of this contention, and the affidavit of the President of the Special Tribunal before whom the charge against the petitioner was heard, the third respondent before us, makes no reference to this submission. In the absence of any reference to the point in the affidavit it is unnecessary to deal with it at any length. It appears, however, from the detailed record of the proceedings before the Special Tribunal - which was annexed to the petition - that this question was the subject of lengthy discussion and argument, and the President of the Tribunal made some remarks which seem to throw doubt on the competence of this court to interfere in proceedings before the military courts. In one of its decisions it was held by the Special Tribunal that:-

 

            "There is no authority in the law of the State for the submission:

 

            (a) that the High Court of Justice may intervene in the course of proceedings before a military tribunal:

           

            (b) that a military tribunal is bound in any way by the decisions of any civil court...".

           

            It was this very decision which induced counsel for the petitioner to make the submission contained in paragraph 10 of the affidavit which he filed, and since the question of the "superiority" of the civil as against military courts is raised in this court all too frequently, it is imperative that something be said here on this subject which will constitute an "authority", or, at least, something in the "nature of an authority".

           

4. The Army Code, 1948, from the provisions of which the military tribunals derive their jurisdiction, is modelled upon the English Army Act. This Act does not lay down specifically the relationship between the civil courts and military tribunals. Learned jurists in England, however, regard the military tribunals as part of the general system of courts for certain purposes, and in the course of time a number of principles which indicate the de facto relationship between these courts have been laid down by the courts and legal writers. A number of these principles are cited in the Manual of Military Law, in Chapter 8 of which the following is laid down:1)

 

            "The members of courts martial... are, like the inferior civil courts and magistrates, amenable to the superior civil courts for injury caused to any person by acts done either without jurisdiction, or in excess of jurisdiction... Such injuries will equally be inquired into whether they affect the person, property, or character of the individual injured; and whether the individual injured is a civilian or is subject to military law".

 

            '"The jurisdiction of a tribunal may be limited by conditions as to its constitution, or as to the persons whom, or the offences which, it is competent to try, or by other conditions which the law makes essential to the validity of its proceedings and judgments. If the tribunal fails to observe these essential conditions, it acts without jurisdiction... The result of acting without jurisdiction is that the act is void, and each member of the court-martial... is liable to an action for damages".

 

            "The proceedings by which the courts of law supervise the acts of courts-martial... may be criminal or civil... Civil proceedings may either be preventive, i.e., to restrain the commission or continuance of an injury; or remedial, i.e., to afford a remedy for injury actually suffered. Broadly speaking, the civil jurisdiction of the courts of law is exercised as against the tribunal of a court-martial by writs of prohibition or certiorari.

 

            "The writ of prohibition issues out of the High Court of Justice to any inferior court, when such inferior court concerns itself with any matter not within its jurisdiction, or when it transgresses the bounds prescribed to it by law. The writ forbids the inferior court to proceed further in the matter, or to exceed the bounds of its jurisdiction; and if want of jurisdiction in the inferior court be once shown, any person aggrieved by the usurpation of jurisdiction is entitled to the writ as a matter of right".

           

            "Disobedience of a prohibition is a contempt of court, and as such punishable by fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court which granted the writ “.

           

5. These principles are laid down in respect of the courts of England, but as it is not disputed that the military tribunals in this country are also part of the system of the courts generally, it may be assumed that they also apply to the relationship between the civil and the military courts in Israel. Since this is so, this court is competent to direct military tribunals, through orders issued by it, to refrain from considering a particular matter, and it is the duty of the military tribunal to which the order is addressed to comply with its terms. Section 58 of the Army Code, 19481), is entirely irrelevant. This section, which for some reason has been given the title "The supremacy of Military Tribunals" - is merely designed to provide that a soldier who has committed an offence and is arraigned in criminal proceedings before a civil court is not released thereby from also being tried for the same offence before a military tribunal. It can on no account be deduced from the language of the section, however, that military tribunals are never subject to the authority of this court, even when they purport to arrogate to themselves jurisdiction which in law they do not possess.

 

6. Mr. Cohn, in the course of his argument before as, submitted that in fact only a small number of applications for a Writ of Prohibition had been made to the civil courts in England, and even those which had been made, were dismissed. If this be the fact, it merely shows that those responsible for prosecutions in the military tribunals in England are very careful in their work and are anxious not to bring matters before the tribunals which are beyond their jurisdiction, or that the few applications which were in fact brought were not sufficiently well based to succeed. This does not show that a civil court will never intervene in the work of a military tribunal. The Manual of Military Law, which I have quoted, deals also with this point, and it is said there, at page 123:

 

"Although the writ of prohibition has never actually been issued to a court-martial, there seems no doubt that it might issue in a proper case".

           

7. We make these comments in the belief that the question of the "superiority" of military tribunals over civil courts will no longer trouble the judges who sit on such tribunals nor those who plead before them.

 

8. Turning now to Mr. Cohn's reply on behalf of the respondents, we find it is divided into two parts. The first includes those arguments which deal, in the main, with the submission that the petitioner's application to this court is premature. The second contains Mr. Cohn's arguments on the merits of the petition. We shall deal with these submissions separately.

 

9. In the first place, it is submitted by Mr. Cohn that this Court should not accede to the prayer of the petitioner, since the regular work of the military tribunals would be seriously hampered if it be held that any person charged before them is entitled, at any time, to apply to this court for a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition. It is emphasised by Mr. Cohn that he makes this submission on the specific instructions of the third respondent, the President of the Special Tribunal, which dealt with the case of the petitioner. In our opinion this argument discloses no ground for dismissing the petition, and there is no need to deal with it at any length. Where a person accused before a military tribunal requests a postponement of the proceedings in order to petition this court, the military tribunal may dismiss the application and proceed with the case, if this appears to it to be the correct course. Where, however, a person accused petitions this court and demands justice, it is right that he should be heard, and the doors of the court should not be closed against him merely to suit the convenience of the military tribunal. On no account are the basic rights of a citizen to be withheld on grounds such as these. If, indeed, a military tribunal acts in a particular case without jurisdiction, a serious infringement of the rights of the citizen has taken place, and this court will not hesitate to hear his petition, nor will it pay any regard to the degree of inconvenience which may be caused to the military tribunal in its work.

 

10. The second submission of the State Attorney is that this court will not usually intervene when another remedy is available to the petitioner. According to this argument the petitioner in this case must first be tried before the military tribunal. If he is convicted, he will be able to appeal against the judgment as is provided in the Army Code, 1948. If the judgment on the appeal does not satisfy him, he may apply to the responsible authority for a pardon. If at that stage too he feels aggrieved - only then may he petition this court. As a general rule the principle stated above is a sound one, and this court has in first acted upon it in innumerable cases. The jurisdiction of this court is derived from the second paragraph of Article 43 of the Palestine Order in Council, 1922, and section 7 of the Courts Ordinance, 1940. The second paragraph of Article 43 of the Order in Council provides that: -

 

"The Supreme Court, sitting as a High Court of Justice, shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine such matters as are not causes or trials, but petitions or applications not within the jurisdiction of any other Court and necessary to be decided for the administration of justice".

           

Section 7 of the Courts Ordinance provides, inter alia, that: - "The High Court of Justice shall have exclusive jurisdiction in the following matters: -

 

            (a)        ..................

           

            (b)        orders directed to public officers or public bodies in regard to the performance of their public duties and requiring them to do or refrain from doing certain acts".

           

            In the light of these two provisions this court (in the time of the Mandate) gave a number of directives to indicate in which cases it will intervene and in which cases it will refrain from intervening; see, for example, Havkin v. Inspector-General of Police and Prisons (1) which sets forth the principles which had been laid down in a number of earlier decisions. Today, however, it is beyond doubt that this court will certainly intervene by the issue of a Writ of Prohibition, where an inferior court in a particular case proposes to assume jurisdiction it does not possess. The present case is not similar to one in which it may be said to the petitioner, as was said to him in the case of Barakat v. Maronite Ecclesiastical Court (2), "You have the right not to appear before the body which wishes to try your case if in fact it does not constitute a proper court; wait until actual steps are taken against you, for at this stage of the proceedings you have suffered no injury".

           

            In the case before us the petitioner does not deny that the body which proposes to try him is in general a legal and competent tribunal to deal with the cases of soldiers. His contention, however, is that in this particular case it is wholly incompetent to demand of him that he account for his actions. He is, moreover, not entitled to refuse to obey the summons of the tribunal - he is compelled to appear before it. It would be unjust, therefore, to compel the petitioner first of all to stand trial, and later to be subject to the several stages of the proceedings, with a serious charge carrying a heavy penalty hanging over him, and only after the trial has run its full course to appear here and show that all the proceedings were invalid. At this stage there is no place other than this court to which the petitioner can turn for relief. It seems to us, therefore, that this is one of the eases in which this court is entitled to come to a decision in accordance with both the second paragraph of Article 43 of the Order in Council, and section 7 of the Courts Ordinance.

 

11. The third submission of the State Attorney is that this court should not intervene during the proceedings of the Special Military Tribunal, since section 40 of the Army Code, 1948, deprives it of the right to interpret that Code. That section, which is headed "Interpretation of the Code", provides that "The Presidency of the Supreme Tribunal and any 'sitting' of the Supreme Tribunal shall be competent to interpret this Code should they deem it necessary so to do, and such interpretation shall be binding unless set aside by the Minister of Defence." As I have said, nothing is further from the intention of Mr. Cohn to deny the jurisdiction of this court. On the contrary, he has emphasisd time and again that this court is competent to make orders against military tribunals, and the presidents and judges of such tribunals. In his opinion, however, one power alone has been denied this court by the section cited, and that is the power to interpret the Code and the principles to which it gives expression. It can only be concluded, therefore, that section 40 impliedly deprives this court altogether of the power to consider any matter connected with the soundness of this submission.

 

12. We would point out that section 40, as is the case with many other sections in the Code, is drafted negligently and carelessly, and is defective both in what is lacking and in what is superfluous. It provides, for example, that "a sitting of the Supreme Tribunal" shall be competent to interpret the Code, but we do not know the nature of such a "sitting". Is it intended to refer to every panel of judges "of not less than twenty-one in number" spoken of in section 341), or only to the three or five judges of whom a tribunal is constituted for a particular purpose, as stated in section 361). If the intention is to refer to all the judges sitting together, why are they described by the name "sitting" and not "panel of judges", the name which appears in the marginal note to regulation 34? And if it is intended to refer to a tribunal as ordinarily constituted, sitting for the purposes of a particular case, the question arises whether it is only the Supreme Tribunal which is competent to interpret the Code? Have the inferior military tribunals been deprived of this power ? If so, how is it possible to imagine that an ordinary military tribunal will consider a case in accordance with the Code without being competent to interpret it? And how did the Special Tribunal, which dealt with the case before us, reach its decision if not by interpreting the Code? Moreover, section 40 provides that "such interpretation shall be binding". On whom shall it be binding? Shall it bind every inferior military tribunal in every case brought before it, or only a single particular military tribunal dealing with a particular matter brought before it? And what about the Superior Military Tribunal itself? Will an interpretation given by one "sitting" bind another "sitting" of the same tribunal, or not? And was it the intention that such interpretation should also bind other courts - such as this court - or not? It is elementary principle that an ordinary civil court is not to be deprived of jurisdiction otherwise than by an express provision or an implied intimation in the body of the law itself. (See, for example, section 8(3) of the Registrars Ordinance 1936: section 45 of the Constituent Assembly Elections Ordinance, 1948; regulation 5 of the Emergency (Requisition of Property) Regulations 1948). It would seem, therefore, that the only remarkable feature of this regulation is that the presidency of the Supreme Military Tribunal - although this presidency is not a tribunal in the accepted sense of the term and is also not included in the judicial administration as detailed in regulation 7 - is also competent to interpret the Code, and its interpretation, as also the interpretation of "every sitting of the Supreme Military Tribunal" shall be binding "unless rejected by the Minister of Defence" Their interpretation "will be binding", excludes a case in which their interpretation has not yet been given. In the case before us no interpretation has yet been given by the bodies mentioned in regulation 40, and for this reason this court is competent to interpret the Code for the purpose of this case.

 

13. We now come to deal with the principal submissions of counsel for the parties. As I have said, the petitioner was brought to trial before the Special Military Tribunal under section 214(b) of the Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936, and section 97 of the Army Code. All the arguments of counsel for the parties were concentrated on the exact interpretation which is to be given to section 97, and indeed the fate of the application depends upon which version is accepted by the court.

 

14. Section 97 of the Army Code, 1948, provides:

 

            "(97) Every soldier who, within the framework of the army or by reason of his belonging to the army commits an offence punishable under the general criminal law which is in force or will from time to time be in force in the State and for which belonging to the army does not expressly release the offender from liability, may be tried for such offence before a military tribunal and shall be liable to the same punishment as that to which he would be liable in the ordinary courts".

           

            It is difficult to say that this provision is short and clear, and it is no wonder that the parties before us differ as to its meaning.

           

            Mr. Geiger, counsel for the petitioner, interprets this regulation so as to deprive a military tribunal of the power to try a soldier who has committed an offence under section 214(b) of the Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936, beyond the borders of Palestine. His submission may be framed as follows : when a soldier is tried before a military tribunal for an act which constitutes an offence under the existing criminal law, it must first be ascertained whether, according to that law, the accused would be liable to be punished were he to be tried before the ordinary courts. Counsel stresses the words "commits an offence which is punishable under the existing criminal law", and concludes from this that any act, even if it constitutes an offence, which for any reason would not be punishable by the ordinary courts, is also not punishable by military tribunals. One of the limitations on the powers of the ordinary courts, so counsel continues, is contained in section 6 of the Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936. This section provides : "The jurisdiction of the Courts of Palestine for the purposes of this Code extends to every place within Palestine or within three nautical miles of the coast thereof measured from low water mark".

           

            From this it follows, counsel submits, that the general criminal law recognises only the territorial jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, and not jurisdiction as to persons who commit offences outside the territory. The only exception is that contained in section 5 of the Ottoman Law of Criminal Procedure 18791) which is still in force. Every section of the Criminal Code Ordinance which creates an offence, therefore, must be read together with section 6 of that Ordinance, in order to test whether or not the courts have jurisdiction.

 

15. Applying this test, counsel submits, it is clear that had the petitioner in the case before us been brought to trial for the offence charged before an ordinary civil court, that court would have had no jurisdiction to try the case since the offence charged was committed in Lebanon. That being so, the special Military Tribunal also has no jurisdiction to try the petitioner, since the act in respect of which he is charged before that tribunal does not constitute "an offence punishable under the existing criminal law".

 

16. Mr. Geiger finds support for his submission in the concluding portion of section 97. This section, in speaking of the punishment which may be imposed by a military tribunal for an offence described in the opening portion thereof, provides that the accused "shall be liable to the same penalty as could have been imposed upon him in the ordinary courts". Had a person in the position of the accused been tried before the ordinary courts, so the argument proceeds, he would not have been liable to any penalty at all since, as the offence was committed beyond the borders of Palestine, such court would have had no jurisdiction to try the case. This being so the petitioner, in terms of the concluding portion of the section quoted, is also not liable to any penalty before the Special Tribunal, and if there is no penalty there is no jurisdiction, and there can be no trial.

 

17. Mr. Geiger has not overlooked section 3 of the Army Code which provides that "the Army Code, 1948, shall be binding upon the army and all its institutions and units, and upon soldiers of all ranks whether within the State or beyond its borders". In the first place, however, he submits that this section applies the Code only in respect of the offences set forth in the Army Code itself, that is to say, military offences, and not in respect of other offences which are civil in character and to which the Criminal Code Ordinance - including the limitation in section 6 thereof - applies. According to this argument, therefore, the Army Code, 1948, binds the army, its institutions, units, and soldiers, wherever they are, but only in respect of the offences set forth in that Code, and not in respect of an offence which is stated in the general criminal law. Mr. Geiger further submits in the alternative that the words "beyond its borders" in section 3 mean beyond the borders of the State of Israel, and beyond the borders of the area which was once covered by the Mandate, and was called "Palestine". From this it follows that the Army Code, 1948, binds the army, its institutions, units, and soldiers both in the State of Israel and in Palestine, but does not apply to acts performed by a soldier in Hula in Lebanon - a place beyond the borders of Palestine.

 

18. In explanation of this latter interesting conclusion Mr. Geiger relies upon a number of ordinances, regulations and proclamations. His contention may be put in this way: On May 14, 1948, there was the declaration of the establishment of a Jewish State, namely, the "State of Israel". The Declaration of the establishment of the State, which is published in Official Gazette No. 1, page 1, draws a distinction between the "State of Israel" and "Eretz-Yisrael".1) The "State of Israel" extends only over a portion of "Eretz Yisrael". In terms of section 1 of a proclamation published the same day a legislative authority, the Provisional Council of State, was constituted, and by virtue of the powers conferred upon it, it enacted the Law and Administration Ordinance, 1948. In terms of section 11 of that Ordinance there shall remain in force in the State of Israel ''the law which existed in Palestine on 14th May, 1948". It follows that the limitations on the powers of the legislative authority which applied previously under the law "which existed in Palestine" were not repealed and are still in force. Article 38 of the Palestine Order in Council, 1922, as amended by the Order in Council (Amendment) 1935, provides that "Subject to the provisions of any part of this Order or any Ordinance or Rules, the Civil Courts hereinafter described, and any other Courts or Tribunals constituted by or under any of the provisions of any Ordinance, shall exercise jurisdiction in all matters and over all persons in Palestine".

 

            From this it follows that the territorial jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Israel is in fact more limited than that of the courts which existed in the time of the Mandate, for the area of jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Israel only extends over the area of the State, while the area of jurisdiction of the courts in the time of the Mandate extended over the whole area of "Eretz-Yisrael".

           

19. The Provisional Council of State, in enacting section 1 of the Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordinance, 1948, opened the door for extending the areas in which the law of Israel will apply. That section provides : "Any law applying to the whole of the State of Israel shall be deemed to apply to the whole of the area including both the area of the State of Israel and any part of Palestine which the Minister of Defence has defined by proclamation as being held by the Defence Army of Israel." In this extension, however, there are limitations. Firstly, it is necessary that the extended area be defined by a proclamation of the Minister of Defence as being held by the Defence Army of Israel. Secondly, it is necessary that such extended area be situated within the borders of Palestine - even if it be beyond the borders of the State of Israel. In no circumstances, however, may it extend beyond the borders of Palestine.

 

20. The result, so counsel submits, is that if we read section 3 of the Army Code in the light of all the statutes and proclamations to which I have referred, the meaning of that section is as follows : The Army Code binds the army both within the State and beyond its borders that is to say, beyond the borders of the State of Israel, but not beyond the borders of Palestine. This being so, and the village of Hula in Lebanon being beyond the borders not only of the State of Israel but also of Palestine, and seeing it has not been defined by the Minister of Defence as an area which is held by the Defence Army of Israel, the Army - Code does not apply to it, and the military tribunals have no jurisdiction to try a person for an offence committed by him in that village.

 

21. In view of the authorities which apply to this case these arguments, though forceful, do not appeal to us. Section 97 of the Army Code is of course of decisive importance. The correct intention of that section may be discovered by considering the sections which precede it. Section 97 is found in that chapter of the Army Code which deals with the various types of offences. All the preceding sections, starting with section 77, specify the offences for which a soldier is liable to be tried, and lay down penalties attaching to them. Almost all of these offences are of a military character and are not mentioned in the general criminal law. On the other hand, the general criminal law details numerous offences of a civil character of which there is no mention in sections 77-96 inclusive of the Army Code. Were it not for section 97 a military tribunal would not be competent to try a soldier for one of the offences included in this last group of sections referred to. This section introduced two innovations:

 

            (a) the offences specified in the general criminal law are also offences under the Army Code and may therefore be dealt with by military tribunals.

           

            (b) the penalties which may be imposed upon a soldier by military tribunals in respect of such offences are those laid down in the general criminal law.

           

            This section, therefore, serves as a channel through which all the offences specified in the general criminal law flow into the Army Code, thereby adding to the list of offences already specified in the preceding sections. The opening words of the section "commits an offence punishable under the general criminal law" refer to a soldier who has committed an act regarded by the general criminal law as a punishable offence - that is to say, an act for which a penalty has been prescribed. This is the substantive portion of the law regarding military tribunals and it bears no relationship whatsoever to the question of the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. Let us suppose that a person is charged before the District Court of Haifa with an offence committed by him within the area of jurisdiction of the District Court of Jerusalem. It is clear that the District Court of Haifa has no jurisdiction to try and punish the accused. This in itself, however, in no way affects the fact that the act committed by the accused is in the nature of a punishable offence. The District Court of Haifa has no jurisdiction but the offence is still an offence which is punishable under the Criminal Code.

           

22. This is what is intended by the opening words of section 97. Where a soldier is charged before a military tribunal under a section of the Criminal Code, the opening words of section 97 require that that Code be consulted in order to determine whether the act of the accused constitutes an offence for which a penalty is prescribed. At this stage no reference should be made to section 6 of the Criminal Code, for that section deals not with offences and punishments but with the jurisdiction of the general courts, while we are concerned with the military courts.

 

23. In the same way in which the offences described in the general criminal law are introduced into the Army Code by the opening words of section 97, so the penalties attaching to such offences are introduced by the concluding words of the same section. There may be some force in the submission of Mr. Geiger that the words "shall be liable to the same punishment as that to which he would be liable in the general courts" in the concluding portion of the section, force as to ask whether the person in question would be liable to be punished had he been charged before an ordinary court, and I attach importance to the words "to which he would be liable". The person charged in this case would not be liable to be punished in a general court - not because there is no offence, but because in terms of section 6 of the Criminal Code such court would have no jurisdiction to impose the punishment. This submission, however, goes not to the jurisdiction of the military tribunal but to the merits of the case. It must be made, therefore, before that tribunal when all the other submissions of the defence on the merits of the case are presented to that tribunal.

 

24. It must be borne in mind, moreover, that the opening words of section 97, in speaking of the offence, are directed not to a particular person charged nor to a particular offence, but to offences generally ("an offence punishable"). As against this, the concluding words of the section speak of the punishment to which a particular accused may become liable. It follows, therefore, that the jurisdiction of the military tribunal is to be determined by the following two factors:

 

(a)    whether the accused committed an act which constitutes an offence under the Criminal Code;

 

(b)   whether a punishment for such offence is prescribed by the Criminal Code.

 

The question whether or not a particular person charged is liable to be punished for a particular act does not require consideration of the jurisdiction of the military tribunal but of the charge itself, that is to say, whether or not upon that charge the accused is liable to be punished. That is a matter for the military tribunal - and not for this court.

 

25. We find support for this opinion in section 3(b) of the Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936. That section provides that "The provisions of this Code shall be without prejudice to . . . .

 

(b)   the liability of any person to be tried and punished for an offence under the provisions of any law relating to the jurisdiction of the Palestine Courts in respect of acts done beyond the ordinary jurisdiction of such Courts;"

 

            In other words, the legislature has left the door open for itself to enact laws in the future (and to provide therein also for what has happened in the past) whereby courts will be competent to try and punish persons for acts committed by them which fall beyond the ordinary jurisdiction of such courts, without their being limited by the provisions of the Criminal Code Ordinance (referring, apparently, to section 6 of that Ordinance). The Army Code must be regarded as one of those laws.

           

26. To sum up our consideration of this problem, therefore, section 97 was not intended to introduce into the Army Code the whole of the existing Criminal Code, but only specific sections thereof, namely, those which deal with particular offences and the punishment for such offences, and no more.

 

            The Criminal Code Ordinance, for example, devotes a whole chapter (chapter 4) to "General Principles relating to Criminal Responsibility". For the purposes of the Army Code, however, sections in the Ordinance creating an offence must not be read together with the sections of that chapter, since a whole chapter of the Army Code, namely, part 3, chapter I, is also devoted to these and similar matters. Moreover, the expression "offence" itself is defined differently in the two statutes. It follows from this that it is not the whole of the Criminal Code that has been introduced into the Army Code by section 97, and that section 6 of the Criminal Code Ordinance falls outside the Army Code which contains a parallel provision in section 3 thereof.

           

27. Even if this is not so, and section 6 of the Criminal Code Ordinance is included in the Army Code by virtue of section 97, that Code also includes section 3(b) which, as I have said, renders section 6 inapplicable.

 

28. We shall now examine the nature of Mr. Geiger's second submission. As we have already said, it is his contention that the Special Military Tribunal lacks jurisdiction because even if the Army Code, by virtue of section 3, binds the army and its soldiers also beyond the borders of the State of Israel, it does not apply to them beyond the borders of Palestine, and the act in respect of which the petitioner is charged took place beyond the borders of Palestine. There is no doubt that a number of legislative provisions published after the declaration of our political independence distinguish between the area which is included in the State of Israel and the area which is outside the State of Israel, but within the borders of Palestine, and lay down a number of provisions relating to those areas of Palestine which have been defined by the Minister of Defence as occupied areas. This distinction, however, between the "State of Israel" and "Palestine" does not appear in section 3 of the Army Code. That section applies the Army Code to the army wherever it is, whether within the State or beyond its borders - the words "beyond its borders" are without limitation.

 

29. Two further submissions have been advanced by Mr. Geiger:

 

            (a) just as no extra-territorial jurisdiction has been conferred upon the civil courts, the military tribunals have no such jurisdiction;

           

            (b) if, indeed, it was the intention of the Minister of Defence to confer extra-territorial jurisdiction upon the military tribunals by section 3 of the Army Code, that section would be ultra vires.

 

30. In support of these submissions Mr. Geiger relies upon the case of Attorney-General v. Nikolaiovitch (3) and upon obiter dicta in the judgment. In that case a number of persons were charged under the Immigration Ordinance with assisting Jewish refugees to immigrate to this country. It was proved that the act committed by the accused had been performed beyond the territorial waters of Palestine. It was accordingly held by the court that since it exercised no authority over the place where the offence was committed it had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The Supreme Court (in the time of the Mandate), sitting as a Court of Appeal, upheld the judgment, relying upon the English case of Macleod v. Attorney-General for New South Wales (4).

 

            The facts in Macleod's case were as follows: The appellant, a resident of New South Wales, married a woman in America during the life of his former wife. Upon his return to New South Wales he was charged with the crime of bigamy and upon the basis of a statute which made the marriage of a second wife in any place whatsoever, during the lifetime of the former wife a criminal offence, was duly sentenced. The Court of Appeal in New South Wales upheld this judgment. The decision, however, was reversed by the Privy Council which held that the statute in question must be very strictly interpreted, and that the words "in any place whatsoever" meant any place within the area of New South Wales and not outside it.

           

            The Privy Council went on to point out that were the position otherwise it would mean that the colony of New South Wales assumed jurisdiction over every place in the world. The assumption of powers such as these, which exceeded those conferred upon the colony, was inconceivable. The Privy Council cited with approval the remarks of Baron Parke in Jefferys v. Boosey (5) that,

           

            "It is clear that the Legislature has no power over any person except its own subjects, that is, persons natural-born subjects, or resident, or whilst they are within the limits of the Kingdom. The Legislature can impose no duties except on them; and when legislating for the benefit of persons must, prima facie, be considered to mean the benefit of those who owe obedience to our laws, and whose interests the Legislature is under a correlative obligation to protect.”

           

The Court in the case of Nikolaiovitch (3), when dealing with the principle laid down in Macleod's Case (4), pointed out obiter that had it been the intention of the legislature in enacting the Immigration Ordinance to empower the courts of this country to deal with offences committed beyond its territorial waters, it could not have done so because of the limitations upon its own powers. For these reasons Mr. Geiger asks us to conclude that even under section 3 of the Army Code the area of jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal in this case does not extend beyond the borders of Palestine since that section is to be strictly interpreted.

 

31. These arguments too, which were advanced by Mr. Geiger with much ingenuity, do not appeal to us. It is an important principle of the common law that the area of jurisdiction of the courts extends over the area of the State alone, and that they have no jurisdiction in regard to offences beyond the borders of the State - that is to say, that the criminal jurisdiction of the courts is territorial and not personal (see Archbold's Pleading, Evidence and Practice in Criminal Cases, thirty first Edition, page 25). The Privy Council in Macleod's Case (4) reached its decision upon the principles of the common law which have been introduced into the framework of our criminal law by section 6 of the Criminal Code Ordinance. In England too, however, that principle is subject to limitation and change, and it does not apply when the jurisdiction of the courts has been expressly extended by the legislature. Thus it is said by Archbold, (ibid),

 

            "The jurisdiction of the Courts of British colonies is limited to offences committed within their territories unless express legislation otherwise provides".

           

and at page 26 he says,

 

            "in the case of British subjects who have committed offences abroad there are many exceptions to the common law rule by virtue of specific statutes".

           

We have already seen that the Ottoman Law also recognised personal jurisdiction in the special case dealt with in section 5 in the Ottoman Code of Criminal Procedure, and it is not impossible that this is also the intention of section 3(b) of the Criminal Code Ordinance. Section 3 of the Army Code is then only another example of this. This section confers jurisdiction upon military tribunals to try a military offender who has committed an offence beyond the borders of the State. In other words the jurisdiction of military tribunals is personal and is unlimited by geographical boundaries. Moreover, as we have already seen, the words "beyond its boundaries" are intended to refer to any area beyond the borders of the State, without limitation.

 

32. We now come to deal with the second argument of Mr. Geiger that if that was indeed the intention of section 3 of the Army Code, then that section is ultra vires. Mr. Geiger bases this submission upon Article 38 of the Order in Council, the Declaration of the State of Israel and the first Proclamation made on May 14, 1948, section 11 of the Law and Administration Ordinance, and section 1 of the Areas of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordinance.

 

            There would have been substance in this submission of Mr. Geiger had the Army Code, 1948, been enacted by virtue of the Palestine Order in Council. That, however, is not the case. The Code was enacted in the exercise of powers conferred upon the legislature after the establishment of the State. It is stated at the commencement of the Emergency Regulations Army Code, 1948, that they were made by virtue of the powers conferred upon the Minister of Defence by Section 9 (a) of the Law and Administration Ordinance, 1948. Section 9(b) of the Ordinance provides that,

           

            "An emergency regulation may alter any law, suspend its effect or modify it..... "

           

It is true that in terms of section 11 of the Ordinance

 

            "The Law which existed in Palestine on the 14th May, 1948, shall remain in force"

           

but there are added immediately the additional words,

 

            "in so far as there is nothing therein repugnant to this Ordinance or to other laws which may be enacted by or on behalf of the Provisional Council of State . . . . ."

           

Section 2(a) of the Law and Administration (Further Provisions) Ordinance, 1948, moreover, explains section 11 of the Law and Administration Ordinance, 1948, in providing that

 

            "Where any Law enacted by or on behalf of the Provisional Council of State is repugnant to any law which was in force in Palestine on the 14th May, 1948, the earlier Law shall be deemed to be repealed or amended even if the new Law contains no express repeal or amendment of the earlier Law".

 

It follows therefore that whatever may be the effect of Article 38 of the Order in Council and section 6 of the Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936, there can be no doubt whatsoever that section 3 of the Army Code, 1948, repealed or amended or replaced all earlier provisions in the Law as was the case, as we have seen above, with the specific statutes in England which modified the principle applied by the common law. It follows therefore that by virtue of this section a military tribunal is competent to try a soldier who has committed an offence under the Army Code (this including an offence under the general criminal law which has been introduced into the Army Code under section 97) beyond the State of Israel, or beyond the area of Palestine to which the Mandate applied. Since this is so, the Special Tribunal constituted for the purpose of dealing with the offence committed by the petitioner in the village Hula in the Lebanon was also competent to try the case.

 

33. We desire in conclusion to mention one other argument of the State Attorney. He submitted at the outset of his argument that since the Minister of Defence had dealt neither directly nor indirectly with the matter of the petition there was no necessity to join him as a respondent. In any event, he continued, the name of the Minister should be deleted from the petition so as not to hinder him in the exercise of the powers conferred upon him by section 40 of the Army Code.

 

            It might be proper to examine this submission but in view of the conclusion which we have reached, as set forth above: we do not deem it essential to deal with it here since, in any event, the court has refused the petitioner the relief which he seeks.

           

            In view of what we have said it has been decided to discharge the order nisi granted upon the application of the petitioner.

           

                                                       Order Nisi Discharged.

                                                       Judgment given on February 1, 1959.

In the Supreme Court	HCJ 5931/06
Sitting as a Court of Civil Appeals	HCJ 2038/09

 

 

Before:	His Honor, President (ret.) A. Grunis Her Honor, President M. Naor His Honor, Deputy President E. Rubinstein His Honor, Justice S. Joubran Her Honor, Justice E. Hayut His Honor, Justice H. Melcer His Honor, Justice Y. Danziger
The Appellants in CA 5931/06:	1. Daoud Hattab Hussein 2. Alian Issa Azat 3. Saba Naji Suleiman Alarja 4. Jamal Naji Suleiman Alarja 5. Majed Naji Suleiman Alarja
The Appellants in CA 2038/09:	1. Dr. Walid Abd al-Hadi Ayad 2. Dr. Fatma Ayad 3. Mahmoud Abd al-Hadi Iyad 4. Haled Abd al-Hadi Ayad 5. Hiam Ayad 6. Ali Abd al-Hadi Ayad 7. Signe Breivik 8. Safa Abd al-Hadi Ayad 9. Hamad Ahmed Ayad 10. Fatma Abd al-Hadi Ayad 11. Hassan Salameh Ayad 12. Dr Higad Abd al-Hadi Ayad 13. Dr Fayez Ibrahim Abd al-Majid Hamad
V.
The Respondents in CA 5931/06:	1. Shaul Cohen
	2. Adv. Ami Fulman in his Capacity as Receiver
	3. Dan Levitt
	4. Robert Fleischer
	5. Yaron Meidan
	6. Shlomo Ohana
	7. Lilian Ohana
	8. Moshe Ben Zion Mizrahi
	9. The Head of the Jerusalem Land Registry
	10. The Custodian of Absentees' Property
The Respondents in CA 2038/09:	1. The Custodian of Absentees' Property
	2. The State of Israel – The Ministry Of Defence
	CA 5931/06: Appeal against the Jerusalem District Court's judgment of May 9, 2006 in CF 6044/04, awarded by The HonorableJudge R. Carmel
	CA 2038/09: Appeal against the Jerusalem District Court's judgment of October 2, 2008 in CF 6161/04, awarded by The Honorable Judge I. Inbar

 

 

On behalf of the Appellants in CA 5931/06 and CA 2038/09	Adv. Avigdor Feldman; Adv. Miri Hart; Adv. Shlomo Lecker; Adv. Ramsey Ketilat
On behalf of the First Respondent in CA 5931/06:	Adv. Haim Novogrotzki
On behalf of the Second Respondent in CA 5931/06	Adv. Ami Fulman
On behalf of the Third to Fifth Respondents in CA 5931/06:	Adv. A. Baron; Adv. Shirley Fleischer-Geva
On behalf of the Sixth and Seventh Respondents in CA 5931/06:	Adv. David Ohana
On behalf of the Eighth Respondent in CA 5931/06:	Adv. Eitan Geva
On behalf of the Ninth and Tenth Respondents in CA 5931/06, the Respondents in CA 2038/09 and the Attorney General:	Dr. Haya Zandberg, Adv.; Adv. Moshe Golan

Facts: The appeals focused upon the question of whether properties in East Jerusalem that belong to residents of Judea and Samaria are deemed “absentee property” as defined under the Absentees’ Property Law.

 

Held: In dismissing the appeals, the Supreme Court held that the Absentees’ Property Law applies to properties in East Jerusalem whose owners, beneficiaries or holders are residents of Judea and Samaria. However, in light of the significant difficulties attendant to implementing the Law in accordance with its language, in general, the authorities should refrain from exercising their statutory authority in regard to such properties except in the most exceptional circumstances, and that even then, only subject to the pre-approval of the Attorney General and a decision by the Government or a ministerial committee appointed by it. The Court’s holdings in this judgment will apply prospectively, and only where no statutory steps have been implemented in regard to the said properties.  The holdings of this judgment lead to the conclusion that the specific properties that are the subjects of the appeals are absentees’ property.  

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

President (ret.) A. Grunis

 

1.         The appeals before the Court focus on the question of whether properties in East Jerusalem, the rights in which are owned by residents of Judea and Samaria, constitute "absentees'" property within the meaning of the Absentees' Property Law, 5710-1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Absentees' Property Law" or "the Law").

 

            This question arose in four cases that were heard jointly (CA 5931/06, CA 2250/06, CA 6580/07 and CA 2038/09). This Court held a considerable number of hearings in the appeals. In the course of hearing the appeals, various attempts were made to resolve the disputes between the parties. In two of the appeals, the need for the Court's decision did indeed become unnecessary. Thus, on February 13, 2014, the appeal in CA 2250/06 (Custodian of Absentees' Property v. Dakak Noha) was withdrawn after the parties reached a settlement agreement that was granted the force of a judgment. The appeal in CA 6580/07 (Custodian of Absentees' Property v. Estate of Abu Zaharaya) was dismissed on September 10, 2013, after the appellant gave notice that he was withdrawing the appeal. The time has now come to decide the remaining two appeals – CA 2038/09 and CA 5931/06.

 

The Background and Chain of Events

 

2.         The appeals before us concern properties in East Jerusalem that were determined to be “absentees’ property”, and whose owners were residents of Judea and Samaria.

 

CA 5931/06

 

3.         CA 5931/06 concerns  some five acres of land located in Beit Safafa on which fruit trees are planted (parcel 34 in block 30277) (hereinafter referred to as "Property 1"). Following to the Six Day War, the property was included in the territory to which the State of Israel extended its jurisdiction  on June 28, 1967 under the Law and Administration Order (No. 1), 5727-1967 (hereinafter referred to as "Order No. 1"). One half of the rights in the property were registered in the Jordanian Land Registry in the name of a resident of Beit Jala who sold them at the beginning of the 1970s to Jewish Israeli nationals. The rights of the Jewish purchasers were recorded in the Land Registry in 1972 and 1974. The remaining half of the rights in the property belonged to Appellants 3-5, who are residents of Beit Jala, and members of their family (hereinafter referred to as "the Alarja family"). In 1973, the majority of the Alarja family's rights in the property were sold (excluding the rights of one of its members, who owned one fourteenth of the parcel and is not party to this appeal). At the end of a chain of transactions, the rights came into the possession of Appellants 1 and 2, who are residents of Beit Safafa. Their applications to register the property in the Land Registry were declined on the ground that they had to apply to the Custodian of Absentees' Property (hereinafter referred to as "the Custodian"). In 1996, the Custodian informed them that he would not release the property.

 

4.         The Appellants filed a claim for declaratory relief in the Jerusalem District Court, to the effect that Property 1 was not absentees' property, or in the alternative, that the Custodian was obliged to release it (CF 6044/04,  Judge R. Carmel). The claim was dismissed in a judgment given on May 9, 2006, which held that the property was absentees' property. The court held that the properties in East Jerusalem of residents of Judea and Samaria are absentees' property despite the fact that the absenteeism is "technical". Hence, whether the owners of Property 1 resided in Egypt at the relevant time (as pleaded in respect of some members of the Alarja family) or were residents of Beit Jala, they were "absentees". Consequently, the rights in Property 1 were vested in the Custodian, and it was held that any disposition made in respect of it by Appellants 3-5 after June 28, 1967 (when it became "absentees' property") was invalid. The court dismissed the Appellants' plea of discrimination in comparison with the Jewish purchasers, whose rights in the property were registered in their name. In the court's opinion, the very registration of the rights did not mean that the registration was lawful, and the same could not constitute a "lever for the making of another mistake by another unlawful registration" (para. 13 of the judgment). In addition, the District Court disagreed with the judgment in OM (Jerusalem District) 3080/04 Dakak v. Heirs of Naama Atia Adawi Najar, Deceased (January 23, 2006, The Honorable Judge B. Okon, hereinafter:  the Dakak case), from which it appears that the residents of Judea and Samaria are not "absentees" according to section 1(b)(1)(ii) of the Law. We shall further refer to the Dakak case below (an appeal was filed against the judgment in the Dakak case in CA 2250/06, as noted in para. 1 above). The first appeal herein (CA 5931/06) was filed against the judgment in CF 6044/04.

 

5.         To complete the picture, it should be noted that other legal proceedings have been conducted in respect of Property 1. These were further to the deletion of the Alarja family's rights from the Land Registry in accordance with a judgment awarded in default of defense on the application of the Respondent 1 (CF (Jerusalem Magistrates) 21351/95, Judge I. Zur, partial judgment of January 31, 1996). The rights ofRespondent 1 in the property were then sold to Respondents 3-7. The Appellants filed lawsuits to set aside the said judgment and for declaratory relief according to which they are the owners of the property (CF (Jerusalem Magistrates) 10386/96, Judge. R. Shamia); CF (Jerusalem District) 1264/97, Judge B. Okon, the claim was struck out on March 23, 2003). The Custodian, for his part, filed a claim for declaratory relief to the effect that the Alarja family's rights in Property 1 constituted absentees' property, and that the transactions made in regard to its part of the property were void (CF (Jerusalem District) 1504/96,  Judge A. Procaccia). The claim was dismissed further to a settlement that was formulated between the Custodian and Respondents 1-7, which was approved by the court on March 5, 2002). It should be noted that in the latter proceedings the Appellants originally joined the position of the Custodian, including the plea that the property was absentees' property, but they then withdrew that plea with the court's approval. We would further add that in the period during which the proceedings have been heard, Appellants 1, 3 and 4 have unfortunately passed away.

 

CA 2038/09

 

6.         CA 2038/09 concerns 0.84 acres of land in Abu Dis (hereinafter referred to as "Property 2"), on which there is a residential building which, in 1964, was converted to a hotel known as the Cliff Hotel (hereinafter referred to as "the hotel"). The property is in the territory to which the State of Israel's jurisdiction and administration were extended in 1967. Its original owner (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was a resident of Abu Dis and a national of Jordan. The Appellants own the rights in the property by virtue of inheritance and law. On July 24, 2003, the Custodian issued an absentee certificate under section 30 of the Law in respect of Property 2. Further thereto, the Appellants filed a claim in the Jerusalem District Court for the award of declaratory relief to the effect that the property was not "absentees' property". In the alternative, they applied for the property to be released or, in the further alternative, they asked that the absentee certificate issued in respect of it be declared void (CF 6161/04, Judge I. Inbar). It should be noted that the parties were originally at issue as regards the property's location in Israel, but in the course of the proceedings they agreed that the property has been in the area of Israel since 1967. The claim was dismissed on October 2, 2008. It was held that, at the determining time, the deceased was resident in Judea and Samaria, namely outside the area of Israel, about 300 meters from the hotel, and he was not a resident of East Jerusalem. Such being the case, it was held that the property was "absentees' property", both according to section 1(b)(1)(i) of the Law (because the deceased was a national of Jordan) and by virtue of section 1(b)(1)(ii) of the Law (as he was a resident of Judea and Samaria) (the section is quoted in para. 13 below). The court disagreed with the interpretation laid down in Dakak, according to which the Law does not apply to the properties in East Jerusalem of the residents of Judea and Samaria. In the court’s view, weight should be given to the difficulties involved in the authority’s treating the residents of Judea and Samaria as "absentees" for the purpose of implementing the Law, but not in regard to the Law’s incidence. In addition, it was noted that the pleas concerning the modus operandi of the Custodian under the Law are within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice rather than the District Court. Furthermore, the Appellants' plea that the Custodian was precluded from exercising his powers because of a representation that the State had made to the effect that the property was not in Israel, which led to a change of their position to their detriment, was dismissed. The second appeal before us (CA 2038/09) is brought against the judgment in CF 6161/04.

 

7.         It should incidentally be noted that since 2003 there have been various developments in respect to Property 2 due to its proximity to the security fence. In that connection, part of the property was demolished with the consent of the parties, and the security forces then seized possession of it by virtue of the Emergency Land Requisition (Regulation) Law, 5710-1949. In 2013, part of the land was expropriated for security purposes by virtue of the Land (Acquisition for Public Purposes) Ordinance 1943 (hereinafter: "the Acquisition Ordinance"). These matters, which are beyond the scope of these proceedings, were tried in various different legal proceedings (see HCJ 1622/13, judgment of February 12, 2014, Deputy President M. Naor, and Justices E. Rubinstein and D. Barak-Erez); HCJ 1190/14, judgment of March 18, 2014, Deputy President M. Naor, and Justices E. Rubinstein and Y. Danziger; and ALA 6895/04,judgment of November 16, 2004 on the application for leave to appeal against the District Court's judgment in CF 6161/04 on an application for a provisional injunction)).

 

8.         Incidental to the proceedings before us, on July 18, 2013, the Special Committee under section 29 of the Law (hereinafter: "the Special Committee") deliberated on the release of the two properties involved in the appeals. As regards Property 1 (the property involved in CA 5931/06), the Respondents, represented by the State Attorney (hereinafter: "the Respondents"), stated that the Custodian was no longer in possession of the land, but only the proceeds therefrom, because the property had been purchased by third parties "in market overt conditions" (para. 31(a) of the Respondents' application of October 5, 2014). The Special Committee recommended the release of those proceeds to whichever of the Appellants were residents of Judea and Samaria and still living. As regards the Appellants who had died while the proceedings were being heard, supplementary particulars were requested, and as regards the other members of the Alarja family it was recommended not to release the proceeds of the property. As regards Property 2 (the property involved in CA 2038/09), the Special Committee recommended the release in specie of the part that had not been requisitioned for the construction of the security fence, and to release the proceeds for the part requisitioned only to the owners who are residents of Judea and Samaria, who are the ones who had held the property continuously until it had been requisitioned. Under the circumstances, the Respondents argued that the appeals had become theoretical and they moved for their dismissal. The Appellants, for their part, stated that they insisted on the appeals. According to them, if their position on the basic question concerning the application of the Law in their case were accepted, then it would not have been appropriate from the outset to view the properties as "absentees' property", and the Special Committee's decision was ultra vires. In addition, the Appellants in CA 2038/09 pleaded that in light of the security forces' seizure of Property 2 for the construction of the security fence, the decision concerning the release of the property had no real meaning. In our decision of December 28, 2014 we dismissed the application to dismiss the appeals.

 

The Parties' Arguments

 

9.         In both the appeals before us, the Appellants assert that it was not appropriate to view the properties concerned as "absentees' property". For the sake of convenience, we shall cite their basic arguments with regard to the application of the Absentees' Property Law together. We shall then separately consider their individual arguments in respect of the properties in dispute. In principle, the Appellants assert that the Law should not be applied to property in East Jerusalem whose owners, beneficiaries or holders (hereinafter referred to as "the owners of the rights") are residents of Judea and Samaria. According to them, those properties merely became "absentees' property" because of the unilateral extension of the law of the State of Israel to the areas where they are located. This occurred without the owners moving from the spot, and while they were subject to the authority and control of Israel near their property. According to them, the purpose of the Law was to contend with the unique circumstances that prevailed at the time of the State's establishment, which are now different, and the legislature could not have envisaged the reality created further to the Six Day War. According to them, the residents of Judea and Samaria have nothing at all to do with the "absentees" at whom the Law was aimed. The Appellants state that the various attorneys general over the years were also cognizant of these difficulties.

 

            They argue that the Law should, therefore, be interpreted against the background of its purpose and the historical context in which it was enacted, in the spirit of the Basic Laws, and in recognition of the need to protect their property, such that its provisions will not apply to the said properties. They propose a "pragmatic" interpretation of section 1(b)(1)(ii) of the Law, by  which the properties are prima facie considered absentees' property (the section is quoted in para. 13 below). This section deals with anyone who at any time during the period prescribed in the Law was "in any part of Palestine[1] outside the area of Israel". According to the Appellants, "outside the area of Israel" should be read as "the area outside Israeli control". That is to say that "the area of Israel" should not be viewed as relating only to the area in which the law, jurisdiction and administration of Israel has been applied. In fact, their argument is that since Judea and Samaria have been under the effective control of the State of Israel since 1967, it should not be regarded as "outside the area of Israel" for the purpose of the Law, and section 1(b)(1)(ii) of the Law therefore does not apply to the residents of Judea and Samaria. In addition, the Appellants propose adopting the interpretation that the District Court applied in Dakak, which we shall discuss further (in para. 26 below). The Appellants also propose viewing "the area of Israel" within the meaning of section 1(b)(1)(ii) of the Law solely as the area in which the law of the State of Israel applied at the time of the Law's enactment. According to the argument, that area does not include new territory over which the law, jurisdiction and administration of Israel have been applied or which is held by Israel, unless the provisions of the Law have been expressly applied to the additional territory. In the Appellants' opinion, the interpretations propounded are not contrary to section 3 of the Legal and Administrative Matters (Regulation) Law [Consolidated Version], 5730-1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Legal Regulation Law"), from which it emerges that the properties of East Jerusalem residents that are located in East Jerusalem are not to be regarded as "absentees' property". (Section 3(a) of the said Law provides that "a person who, on the day of the coming into force of an application of law order, is in the area of application of the order and a resident thereof shall not, from that day, be regarded as an absentee within the meaning of the Absentees' Property Law, 5710-1950, in respect of property situated in that area".) According to them, the said section deals only with the residents of East Jerusalem, where Israeli law has been applied, and a negative arrangement is not to be inferred therefrom in respect of residents who are under Israeli control in Judea and Samaria. They believe that there is no foundation for the distinction between residents of Judea and Samaria, who are under Israeli control, and the residents of East Jerusalem. Alongside this, the Appellants plead that the Custodian is interpreting the broad provisions of the Law in a discriminatory and degrading way. Thus, for example, according to them, on a strict interpretation of the Law, Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria and members of the security forces who are staying there are also "absentees", but the Law is only applied to Arab residents of Judea and Samaria.

 

10.       The Appellants assert that applying the interpretation proposed leads to the conclusion that the properties involved in the appeals are not absentees' property. The Appellants in CA 5931/06 argue that the refusal to register their rights in Property 1 in the Land Registry, while the rights of the Jewish purchasers have been registered, amounts to discrimination. Moreover, they make arguments in respect of the conduct of the Custodian in their case, including in respect of the difference in his attitude toward them, compared with his attitude toward the Jewish purchasers. Consequently, they ask that we find that Property 1 is not absentees' property, or alternatively, that we order its release under section 28 of the Law, if it is indeed held that absentees' property is involved. In any event, they explain that if it is held that the property is not absentees' property, it will be necessary to conduct a factual enquiry with regard to the litigants' title thereto. The Appellants in CA 2038/09 plead that Property 2 was requisitioned contrary to the Attorney General's directives in  this regard. In addition, they wonder why it was necessary to make use of "such a Draconian and improper law", when he could have satisfied himself with the issuing of a seizure order for security purposes, the duration and purposes of which are limited, as was indeed later done (para. 29 of the summations of January 26, 2010). Moreover, they make various different arguments concerning the way in which the property was requisitioned and about the real purpose of the move. In that connection they plead laches and the Respondents' failure to act in respect of the property because of the representation that they made, according to which the property was in Judea and Samaria rather than Israel, which led to a detrimental change in the position of the Appellants in CA 2038/09. They also complain of the determination that the District Court is not competent to treat of the way in which the Law is implemented. In view of all the foregoing, they ask that we quash the requisition of Property 2 by virtue of the Law, and return it to them.

 

11.       The Respondents' position is that the Law applies to properties in East Jerusalem of the residents of Judea and Samaria. According to them, "area of Israel", in the sense of the Law, relates only to territory to which Israeli law has been applied. They warn against the serious consequences involved in adopting the interpretive approach advanced by the Appellants, which is similar to the interpretation laid down by the District Court in Dakak. According to them, the term "area of Israel" is mentioned both in respect of the location of the particular property (section 1(b)(1) of the Law) and in respect of the location of the owners of the rights in the property (section 1(b)(1)(ii) of the Law). Hence, the interpretation proposed might lead to properties in Judea and Samaria being regarded as "absentees' property" as well, when their owners are included in one of the other alternatives of section 1(b)(1) of the Law. According to them, the presumption is that this is the position in the case of many of the residents of Judea and Samaria, who were Jordanian nationals. Consequently, they assert that the Appellants' proposal will in any event be of no help to them. In addition, the Respondents object to the proposal to interpret the "area of Israel" as a "photograph" of the situation that existed at the time of the Law's enactment. According to them, there is no basis for that in the Law, and it is contrary to its purpose – to enable the transfer of ownership to the Custodian of any property situated in the area of the State and belonging to an "absentee", to be used for the development of the country. They also mention that the Law was enacted when the final boundaries of the State had not yet been formulated (and in fact the provision of section 1(b)(1)(ii) of the Law already appeared in the Absentees' Property Emergency Regulations, 5709-1948 of December 12, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Emergency Regulations") which applied during the War of Independence and preceded the Law). Alongside this, the Respondents argue that a restrictive policy should be adopted when implementing the Law. According to them, the powers in the Law should not be exercised in respect of the properties at issue, unless the Attorney General's approval is first obtained. They contend that over the years a restrictive policy has indeed been adopted in the implementation of the Law, in accordance with the position of the Attorneys General. According to the Respondents, looking to the future, this modus operandi will lead to results similar to those that will be obtained as a result of finding that the Law does not apply in the instant cases. However, adopting it, as distinct from finding that the Law does not apply, is essentially of significance in respect of the past. This is because a finding that the Law does not apply in these cases means that all the acts that have been done in respect of properties of that type are void, with the substantial difficulties involved therein that they mention. In addition, the Respondents reject the Appellants' argument of discrimination in the implementation of the Law. According to them, the Custodian adopts a standard policy in respect of everyone lawfully moving outside the area of Israel, regardless of his ethnic origin. Thus, for example, the Law is not implemented in respect of State nationals, be they Jews or Arabs, even where the strict implementation of its provisions would necessitate an application to release their property.

 

            As regards the properties in dispute, the Respondents argue that, under the circumstances, the Special Committee's decision provides a proper answer to the Appellants. The Respondents reject the pleas of discrimination made in CA 5931/06 and emphasize that the improper registration in the past of the rights of Jewish purchasers does not justify similar registration now. According to them, until the 1970s the Custodian used to permit the sale of absentees' property to Israelis in order to facilitate matters for the residents of Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip, but that policy has been changed. In addition, they explain why the Custodian has not acted to cancel registration of the transactions made by the Jewish purchasers and they state that they did in the past act against the transfer of rights in Property 1 to the Respondent 1, who is a Jewish national of Israel. In addition, the Respondents plead that ruling on the competing rights in respect of the property involved in CA 5931/06 necessitates the review of factual and legal arguments that were not considered at the trial instance in view of its conclusion that Property 1 is "absentees' property".

 

12.       The other Respondents in CA 5931/06, the Jewish purchasers of the rights in Property 1, join in the Custodian's position on the question of principle with regard to the application of the Law. As regards the interpretation proposed by the Appellants, they state that since the Oslo Accords, effective control of a large proportion of Judea and Samaria is not held by the State of Israel and they argue that the said interpretation would necessitate equating the status of Judea and Samaria's residents with that of Israeli residents in other respects. They emphasize that they acquired the rights in Property 1 in good faith and for consideration, and they comment that the Appellants' domicile has never been established. According to them, the Appellants in CA 5931/06 are undermining the judgments that have been awarded in respect of Property 1, and their conduct in the various proceedings in respect thereof amounts to an abuse of process, inter alia in view of the change in their versions on the question of absenteeism.

 

Discussion and Decision

 

13.       The proceedings before us concern, as aforesaid, the question of whether properties in East Jerusalem, the owners of the rights in which are residents of Judea and Samaria, are "absentees' property" under the Absentees' Property Law. We would immediately emphasize that these proceedings address only such properties and not any other type of property. The point of departure for the discussion is the Absentees' Property Law, and we shall therefore commence by presenting its main provisions. "The portal" to the Law is contained in the definitions of "absentee" and "absentees' property". "Absentees' property" is defined in section 1(e) of the Law as follows:

 

            "'Absentees' property' means property, the legal owner of which, at any time during the period between Kislev 16, 5708 (November 29, 1947) and the day on which a declaration is published under section 9(d) of the Law and Administration Ordinance, 5708-1948, that the state of emergency declared by the Provisional Council of State on Iyar 10, 5708 (May 19, 1948) has ceased to exist, was an absentee or which, at any time as aforesaid, an absentee held or enjoyed, whether by himself or through another; but it does not include movable property held by an absentee and exempt from attachment or seizure under section 3 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance, 1938" [emphasis added – A.G.].

 

            The term "absentee" is defined in section 1(b) of the Law as follows:

 

             "(b) 'Absentee' means –

 

            (1) A person who, at any time during the period between Kislev 16, 5708 (November 29, 1947) and the day on which a declaration is published, under section 9(d) of the Law and Administration Ordinance, 5708-1948 that the state of emergency declared by the Provisional Council of State on Iyar 10, 5708 (May 19, 1948) has ceased to exist, was a legal owner of any property situated in the area of Israel or enjoyed or held it, whether by himself or through another, and who, at any time during the said period –

 

                        (i) was a national or citizen of the Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Trans-Jordan, Iraq or Yemen, or

 

                        (ii) was in one of these countries or in any part of Palestine outside the area of Israel, or

 

                        (iii) was a Palestinian citizen and left his ordinary place of residence in Palestine

 

                                    (a) for a place outside Palestine before Av 27, 5708 (September 1, 1948); or

 

                                    (b) for a place in Palestine held at the time by forces which sought to prevent the establishment of the State of Israel or which fought against it after its establishment;"

 

            It should be noted as regards the mention of "Trans-Jordan" in sections 1(b)(1)(i) and (ii) that in 1994 the legislature excluded from the application of the Absentees' Property Law certain properties, the owners of the right in which where nationals or citizens of Jordan. This was further to the peace agreement with Jordan (see section 6 of the Implementation of the Peace Agreement between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom Law, 5755-1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Peace Agreement with Jordan Law")).

 

14.       According to the Absentees' Property Law, "absentees' property" is vested in the Custodian and the "absentees" lose their rights in it (see CA 8481/05 Lulu v. Custodian of Absentees' Property, para. 7 (February 28, 2007) (: the Lulu case)). The vesting of the property in the Custodian in accordance with the Law is not dependent upon his doing any act, and the rights in it automatically pass to him from the moment that the conditions for its being "absentees' property" are fulfilled (section 4 of the Law; CA 109/87 Makura Farm Ltd v. Hassan, IsrSC 47(5) 1, 29 (1993) (hereinafter: the Makura Farm case); CA 427/71 Faraj v. The State of Israel, IsrSC 27(1) 96, 101 (1972) (hereinafter:  theFara case"), in which it was stated that since automatic vesting is involved, the Custodian might not even be aware that a property has been vested in him; CA 4630/02 The Custodian of Absentees' Property v. Abu Hatum, para. L(3) (September 18, 2007) (hereinafter: the Hatum case; CA 8753/07 The Estate of Atalla Halil Bahij, Deceased v. Custodian of Absentees' Property, para. J (November 16, 2010)). It should be emphasized that in view of the prolonged state of emergency, which is still in force, the application of the Law continues and its operation has not yet ended. That is to say that anyone who has fulfilled or does in future fulfil the conditions for the definition of an "absentee" during the relevant period (namely since 1947 until the future end of the state of emergency) will be regarded as an "absentee" and his property in Israel will be vested in the Custodian. That is unless he has been excluded from the scope of the Law.

 

            The status of the Custodian in respect of absentees' property is the same as was that of the owner of the property, and he is entrusted with its management, care and supervision (section 4 of the Law). To that end, very extensive powers have been granted to him (see HCJ 6/50 Freund v. Supervisor of Absentees' Property, Jerusalem, IsrSC 4 333, 337 (Justice M. Dunkelblum) (1950) (hereinafter: the Freund case); Minutes of Meeting No. 123 of the First Knesset, 950, 956 (March 7, 1950) (hereinafter: the Minutes 123); Menahem Hoffnung, Israel – State Security Versus the Rule of Law, 162 (5761) (Hebrew) (hereinafter: Hoffnung)). In this connection it is provided that the Custodian may incur expenses and make investments in order to safeguard, maintain, repair and develop the property (section 7 of the Law); continue the management of a business on behalf of the absentee (section 8 of the Law, and sections 24 and 25, which concern a partnership of which an absentee is a member and properties of which absentees are co-owners); order the eviction of someone who is occupying the property without any right (section 10 of the Law); order the discontinuance of construction on the property and its demolition (section 11 of the Law). In addition, the Law requires that absentees' property be handed over to the Custodian (section 6 of the Law) and information in respect of it provided (section 21 of the Law). The Law imposes restrictions and prohibitions concerning the doing of various different acts with the property without the Custodian's consent (section 22 of the Law), and it provides that certain acts that have been done in respect of the property are null and void (section 23 of the Law). In addition, certain acts that have been done contrary to the Law are regarded as criminal offences, the penalty for which might amount to up to two years' imprisonment (section 35 of the Law). Although the Law restricts the Custodian's ability to sell and grant a long lease of immovable property that has been vested in him (section 19), it does permit him to transfer it to the Development Authority, subject to certain reservations. In this connection it should be noted that in an agreement that was made on September 29, 1953 between the Custodian and the Development Authority, all the immovable property vested in the Custodian was transferred to the Authority (according to The Government Yearbook 5715, 47). Similarly, the Law limits the liability that the Custodian bears for his acts (sections 16 and 29P of the Law), and lays down lenient evidential arrangements for him (section 30 of the Law; Makura Farm, pp. 12-13). The Law further provides that transactions made between the Custodian and another person in good faith will not be invalidated even if it is established after the fact that the property was not vested property (section 17 of the Law). Alongside this, the Law lays down various mechanisms that are apparently aimed at mitigating its serious effects. Thus, the Custodian has been authorized, in certain circumstances, to "relieve" a person of his "absenteeism" (section 27 of the Law) and to release properties that have been vested in him (sections 28-29 of the Law; for the significance of such release, see CA 263/60 Kleiner v. Director of Estate Tax, IsrSC 14 2521 (1960) (hereinafter: the Kleiner case; for further discussion of several of the decisions that have been given by the Special Committee, including its recommendation for a sweeping release of properties in certain cases, see Haim Zandberg, Israel Land, Zionism and Post-Zionism, 83-83 (2007) (Hebrew)).

 

15.       As we see, the Law grants the Custodian very extensive powers and its overall provisions create a far-reaching arrangement, at the center of which is the expropriation of the rights in absentees' property from the owners and their vesting in the Custodian. This arrangement should be understood against the special circumstances that led to its enactment. At the end of the War of Independence, and in fact even during it, the young State of Israel faced a complex, new reality. This was, inter alia, due to the enlarged area under its control and the mass departure of Arab residents, leaving behind them extensive property, abandoned and vulnerable to intrusion and unruly squatting, on the basis of "might makes right" (see Eyal Benvenisti and Eyal Zamir, “Private Property In the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Settlement”, Research of the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 77, 7-9 (1998) (Hebrew) (hereinafter: Benvenisti and Zamir, Private Property)). These challenges necessitated a rapid legal answer that would make it possible to settle the rights in, and deal with, those properties. Indeed, in the first years of the State a series of legal arrangements was laid down to contend with the complex reality that had arisen (for further reading, see for example Shlomo Ifrach, “Legislation Concerning Property and Government in the Occupied Territories”, 6 Hapraklit 18 (1949) (Hebrew); Hoffnung, pp. 159-168; Eyal Zamir and Eyal Benvenisti, "Jewish Land in Judea, Samaria, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem”, Research of the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 52, 28-29 (1993) (Hebrew) (hereinafter: Zamir and Benvenisti, Jewish Land)). One of the major pieces of legislation enacted in this context is the Absentees' Property Law, which was enacted in 1950 and replaced the Emergency Regulations that had been promulgated in this respect and that applied during the War of Independence.

 

16.       The Law was designed to regulate the administration of "absentees'" property by the State authorities, and make it possible to safeguard it against lawlessness (see, Minutes of Meeting No. 119 of the First Knesset, 872 (February 27, 1950) (hereinafter:  Minutes 119); CA 58/54 Habab v. Custodian of Absentees' Property, IsrSC 10 912, 918 (1956); Freund, p. 337). The purpose of the Law was not expressly defined in it and it did not prescribe for whose benefit "the absentees' property" should be safeguarded (see Minutes 123, p. 952; Shlomo Ifrach, “Thoughts on the Absentees' Property Law, 5710-1950”, 9 HaPraklit 182 (5713) (Hebrew)). The case law has held that the purpose of the Law is merely to safeguard the property for the benefit of its absentee owners, but it is also aimed at achieving the State's interests in the property, including, so it has been held, "the ability to utilize it to promote the country's development, while preventing its exploitation by anyone who is an absentee within the meaning of the Law, and the ability to hold it (or its proceeds) until the formulation of political arrangements between Israel and its neighbors, in which the fate of the property will be decided on the basis of reciprocity between the countries" (HCJ 4713/93 Golan v. Special Committee under Section 29 of the Absentees' Property Law, IsrSC 48(2) 638, 644 (1994) (hereinafter: the Golan case). For a discussion of the Law's objectives, see also CF (Haifa District) 458/00 Bahai v. Custodian of Absentees' Property, para. 26 (Judge I. Amit) (September 19, 2002) (an appeal was filed against the judgment, but the judgment in the appeal did not require an analysis of the Law's purpose (CA 9575/02 Custodian of Absentees' Property v. Bahai (July 7, 2010) (hereinafter: the Bahai case)). This approach is also consistent with statements made at the time the Law was enacted (see Minutes 119, pp. 869-870).

 

            It should be noted that the wording and title of the Law prominently emphasize the absence of the property owners (the "absentees"). Nevertheless, the background that led to its enactment and the nature of the arrangements prescribed in it might indicate that, in fact, the Law sought to determine the legal position in respect of the properties in Israel of nationals and residents of the enemy states. In any event, it appears that the Court has gained this impression in several cases dealing with these matters (see Golan, p. 645; HCJ 99/52 Anonymous v. Custodian of Absentees' Property, IsrSC 7 836, 839 (1953) (hereinafter: the Anonymous case); Kleiner, p. 2544 (per Justice A. Witkon), where it was stated that the Law is similar in character to the legislation on trade with the enemy, the consequence of which is the expropriation of the ownership of, and rights in, the property and their vesting in the Custodian. Support for this concept can also be found in the statement by the Minister of Justice, D. Libai, in the debate on the Peace Agreement with Jordan Bill (Minutes of Meeting No. 312 of the 13th Knesset, 5658 (January 23, 1995) (hereinafter: Minutes 312)). See also Benvenisti and Zamir, Private Property, pp. 13-14; para. 64 of the notice of appeal dated July 13, 2006 in CA 5931/06. Nevertheless, in the Appellants' summations in CA 2250/06 (the Respondents herein) to which the latter referred, it was asserted that the definition of "absentee" in the Law does not necessarily reflect a person's connection with an enemy state).

 

The Broad Application of the Absentees' Property Law

 

17.       Against the background of the exceptional circumstances in which the Law was enacted, it can perhaps be understood why it is worded so sweepingly and strictly. In any event, the way it is drafted, and especially the broad definitions of its underlying terms – with the emphasis on "absentee", "property" and "absentee property" – lead to the very extensive application of the Law (see HCJ 518/79 Cochrane v. Committee under Section 29 of the Absentees' Property Law, 5710-1950, IsrSC 34(2) 326, 330 (per Justice H. Cohn) (1980) (hereinafter: the Cochrane case; see also Minutes 123 and Minutes 119, pp. 870-872, which discussed the problems involved in the broad definition of "absentee", which embraces very many cases). Indeed, about 35 years ago this Court indicated that the broad definition of "absentee" is likely to lead to the Law's catching more and more people in its net, sometimes unnecessarily and contrary to its purpose. In the words of Justice H. Cohn, in Cochrane (p. 330):

 

            "In the geopolitical circumstances that existed upon the establishment of the State and at the time of the Law's enactment, it was necessary to define 'absentee' very broadly and sweepingly – despite the risk that the definition would include people who, in fact, had no legal connection with Israel's enemies, physically, ideologically or otherwise. And since the definition remains in force until the end of the state of emergency that has prevailed in Israel since the establishment of the State (section 1(b)(1) of the Law), innocent citizens who have nothing to do with absenteeism might frequently be added to the multitude of 'absentees' as defined in the Law (for example someone who is in part of 'Palestine' outside the area of Israel, - ibid., para. (ii))".

 

18.       The Law's definitions of the various terms are likely to lead to rigid results that are inconsistent with common sense or even the purpose that the Law was intended to serve. Let us demonstrate this by means of several examples – and it should be emphasized that I do not mean to lay down strict rules in respect of the cases that will be referred to,  which are cited merely for the purposes of illustration. According to the Law, it suffices if - at any time in the period between November 29, 1947 and the end of the state of emergency that was declared by the Provisional Council of State in 1948 – the owner of the rights fulfilled one of the alternatives in section 1(b)(1) of the Law (see sections 1(b) and 1(e) of the Law) for property that is in the area of Israel to be regarded as absentees' property. As aforesaid, since a declared state of emergency has existed in Israel ever since the State's establishment, any property in Israel that has been purchased in the last dozens of years by an "absentee" is, according to the wording of the Law, absentees' property. For example, a property in Israel that is purchased today by a national or subject of any of the countries mentioned in section 1(b)(1) of the Law (other than Jordan, as mentioned at the end of para. 13 above) will be regarded as "absentees' property" and immediately be vested in the Custodian. The self-evident difficulty involved in such a situation is aggravated in view of the broad definition of "property" in the Law, which includes "immovable and movable property, monies, a vested or contingent right in property, goodwill and any right in a body of persons or its management" (excluded from "absentees' property" are "movable property held by an absentee and exempt from attachment or seizure under section 3 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance, 1938" (section 1(e) of the Law)). As prescribed, "property" includes, among other things, a right to the repayment of a debt, an obligatory right to receive land, bearer shares and also contractual rights and any right that is enforceable by a lawsuit (see Bahai, paras. 7-9 and the references there). One has to wonder about the logic of the result whereby a debt that is due to an "absentee" in respect of a transaction made by him in relation to property in Israel, for example, will automatically be vested in the Custodian (see MF 89/51 Mituba Ltd v. Kazam, IsrSC 6 4 (1952), where it was held that a debt might be absentees' property. See also CA 35/68 Mualem v. Custodian of Absentees' Property, IsrSC 22(2) 174 (1968) (hereinafter: the Mualem case), which concerned bills of exchange received further to a transaction made in Iraq that were endorsed by a resident of Iraq in favor of an Israeli national. It was stated in the judgment that when the bills, which were the property of an Iraqi resident, arrived in Israel they became absentees' property (ibid., pp. 176-177)). In addition, the simple language of the Law might lead to the conclusion that the absenteeism of the holder of any proprietary right in property suffices to make it "absentees' property". This is so even if the other holders of the rights therein are not absentees, and even if his right is "inferior" to their right. Thus, for example, the very fact that someone who "enjoyed" the property was an absentee apparently suffices for it to be regarded as "absentees' property", even if its owner is not an absentee (see the Makura Farm case, p. 15).

 

            Other difficulties arise in view of the fact that "absentee" is an ongoing "status" that has no end (unless expressly otherwise prescribed or a step is initiated to release the property or its owners from their absenteeism. See CA 110/87 Elrahim v. Custodian of' Absentees' Property (August 22, 1989) (hereinafter: the Elrahim case)). Properties in Israel of whoever has fallen within the scope of the conditions for "absentee" at any time in the period between the end of 1947 and the end of the state of emergency, which is still continuing as aforesaid, are likely to be regarded as "absentees' property" and be denied him. As aforesaid, there is no automatic release from this situation, apart from a few exceptions that have been specifically defined in the Law. For example, a person will be regarded as an absentee merely because, at some stage during the said period, he was a national or citizen of Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Trans-Jordan, Iraq or Yemen or "was" there (as regards Trans-Jordan, see the end of para. 13 above). Hence, according to a strict interpretation of the Law, the properties in Israel of immigrants from Egypt, Iraq or Yemen that were purchased by them before or after they immigrated to Israel, are "absentees' property" (and indeed, that was the case in the Faraj case; see also Mualem. Nevertheless, it does appear that section 28A of the Law, which is mentioned in the next paragraph, resolves that difficulty, at least in respect of properties that have been purchased since arrival in Israel). That is the law, at least prima facie, in respect of the properties in Israel of all those who have visited the said countries, regardless of the purpose or length of the visit. Thus, for example, anyone who went to those places on behalf of the State, for example soldiers in battle, are likely to be regarded as "absentees" (reality has proven that the question is not theoretical; see the Anonymous case, in which a Palestinian citizen, who left Israel for an enemy country as an emissary of one of the State authorities, was regarded as an "absentee"!!). Is it reasonable or acceptable that in the circumstances described, those people should lose their rights in their property in Israel?!

 

19.       It should be noted that a solution has been provided in the Law for at least some of the difficulties arising from its broad wording. A salient example is the possibility of releasing absentees' property (sections 28-29 of the Law) and giving written confirmation that a particular person is not an "absentee" (section 27 of the Law. For a discussion of whether the section applies where a person can be defined as an absentee under section 1(b)(1)(iii) of the Law and also in accordance with one of the other alternatives prescribed in the section, see Anonymous and Bahai, paras. 11 and 13). It should be noted that according to Justice H. Cohn in the Cochrane case, those powers are the solution to the difficulties involved in the definition of "absentee" mentioned in the previous paragraphs (ibid., p. 330) (this was the position of the Court in Elrahim as well). Another example is the provision of the Law that was added in 1951, the purpose of which was to enable "absentees" who are duly present in the area of Israel to purchase rights in properties that did not constitute absentees' property on the date the Law took effect (section 28A of the Law; see Minutes of Meeting No. 234 of the First Knesset, 1254, (March 6, 1951)). Nevertheless, the Law is still far from being free of difficulties. One of the reasons is the fact that in the many years since the Law was enacted, significant geopolitical changes have occurred in the environment of the State of Israel, including Israel's wars and diplomatic arrangements that have been made with some of its neighbors. At the same time, substantial changes have also been made in Israeli law's treatment of human rights. In fact, today's circumstances are materially different from those that existed at the time of the Law's enactment some 65 years ago. Nevertheless, and despite the fact that the Law's application has been continuing all that time, not all the necessary adjustments to the changing times and circumstances have been made. This finds conspicuous expression with regard to property located in East Jerusalem, and in particular, property owned by residents of Judea and Samaria, as is the case in the appeals  before us. Before we go on to consider the specific problems arising in these cases, another note is obliged.

 

20.       In view of the foregoing, an argument might be made with regard to the invalidity of some of the Law's provisions for constitutional reasons. In other words, it could be argued that the provisions of the Law infringe the absentees' rights and in particular their constitutional right to property (section 3 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty), and that it does not fulfil the criteria that have been laid down in case law on the limiting paragraph of the Basic Law (section 8). In my opinion, it is certainly possible that at least some of the arrangements in the Law, were they enacted today, would not meet the constitutional criteria. Nevertheless, in the instant case, the provisions of the limiting paragraph are not such as to serve or to alter the conclusion with regard to the application of the Law in the cases under consideration here. This is in view of the “Validity of Laws” rule in section 10 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, according to which the Basic Law does not affect the validity of any law that existed prior to its entry into force. This provision does not make it possible to find that any provision of the Law is void (see, for example, CFH 2316/95 Ganimat v. State of Israel, IsrSC 49(4) 589, 632-633 (per Justice T. Strasberg-Cohen), 642-643 (per Justice M. Cheshin), 653 (per President A. Barak (1995) (hereinafter: the Ganimat case); HCJ 4264/02 Ibillin Breeders Partnership v. Ibillin Local Council, para. 10 (December 12, 2006)).

 

The Absentees' Property Law and the Properties in East Jerusalem

 

21.       Section 1(b) of the Law imposes two conditions for a person to be an "absentee": the first relates to the particular property and contains the requirement that the property is situated "in the area of Israel". In this respect, "the area of Israel" has been defined as an area where the law of the State of Israel applies (section 1(i) of the Law; for a discussion of that term, see Benjamin Rubin, “The Sphere of the Law's Application, the Area of the State and Everything in Between”, 28 Mishpatim, 215, 226-227 (5755) (Hebrew) (hereinafter: Rubin)). The second condition relates to the owner of the rights in the property (the "absentee"). The "absentee" is someone who falls within one of the alternatives of section 1(b)(1) of the Law. The first alternative is defined according to the person's nationality or citizenship, and it concerns the citizens or nationals of Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Trans-Jordan, Iraq or Yemen (section 1(b)(1)(i) of the Law). The second alternative is defined on the basis of the location of the "absentee" and relates to anyone who was in any of those countries or "in any part of Palestine outside the area of Israel" (section 1b)(1)(ii) of the Law). The third alternative relates to Palestinian citizens who left their ordinary place of residence in Palestine for a place outside Palestine in the circumstances set out in section 1(b)(1)(iii) of the Law (section 27 of the Law nevertheless lays down cases in which an absentee will be exempted from his "absenteeism" according to this alternative; for the controversy that arose between Justices M. Landau and Y. Olshan in respect of this section and the characteristics of the different alternatives, see the Anonymous case).

 

22.       With regard to properties that are situated in East Jerusalem, until 1967 they were not "in the area of Israel", within the meaning of the Absentees' Property Law, namely the area in which the law of the State of Israel applies (section 1(i) of the Law). Consequently, until then they were not absentees' property. That changed with the Six Day War. In the War, East Jerusalem passed into the control of the State of Israel, and on June 28, 1967 the application of Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration was declared (see Order No. 1 that was promulgated by virtue of section 11B of the Law and Administration Ordinance, 5708-1948 (hereinafter: "the Law and Administration Ordinance"). See also section 5 of Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel, which prescribes that East Jerusalem is included within the boundaries of the Jerusalem Municipality. See also HCJ 282/88 Awad v. Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior, IsrSC 42(2) 424, 429 (1988) (hereinafter:as the Awad case; CA 4664/08 Mishal v. Custodian of Absentees' Property, para. 8 (hereinafter: the Mishal case); HCJ 1661/05 Hof Aza Regional Council v. Knesset, IsrSC 59(2) 481, 512-513 (2005) (hereinafter:the Hof Aza Council case); Rubin, pp. 231-234; Benvenisti and Zamir, Private Property, pp. 23-24). In view of this, property in East Jerusalem must, of course, be regarded as situated in "the area of Israel" for the purpose of the Absentees' Property Law (see CA 54/82 Levy v. Estate of Afana Mahmoud Mahmoud (Abu-Sharif), Deceased, IsrSC 40(1) 374, 376 (1986) (hereinafter: the Levy case); HCJ 98/68 Hadad v. Custodian of Absentees' Property, IsrSC 22(2) 254 (1968)).

 

23.       Consequently, all that remains for the owners of rights in property in East Jerusalem to be regarded as "absentees" is for one of the alternatives in section 1(b)(1) of the Law to be fulfilled. In view of the broad definitions in the Law, and given the fact that many of the residents of East Jerusalem were nationals or citizens of Jordan before 1967, it appears that this condition is fulfilled in many cases, and the properties of those people in East Jerusalem should be regarded as "absentees' property". In this context it should be borne in mind that after the Six Day War not only the property in East Jerusalem passed into the area of Israel and under its control, but also the local residents (the residents of East Jerusalem who were included in the census that was conducted in June 1967 obtained the status of permanent residents in Israel and could, in certain conditions, obtain Israeli nationality). As a result, quite a strange situation arose in which the Law applied both to properties and their owners in "the area of Israel". In fact, a person could, for example, remain at home without taking any action or changing his situation or the state of the property, and his home, where he resided in East Jerusalem, became "absentees' property". This difficulty was resolved in respect of the residents of East Jerusalem with the enactment of the Legal Arrangements Law in 1970 (or to be more precise, in 1968, upon enactment of the Legal and Administrative Matters (Regulation) Law, 5728-1968, which preceded it). Section 3 of the 1970 statute prescribes as follows:

 

                        "(a)     A person who on the day of the coming into force of an application of law order [namely an order under section 11B of the Law and Administration Ordinance – A.G.] is in the area of application of the order and a resident thereof shall not, from that day, be regarded as an absentee within the meaning of the Absentees' Property Law, 5710-1950, in respect of property situated in that area.

 

(b)       For the purposes of this section, it shall be immaterial if, after the coming into force of the order, a person is, by legal permit, in a place his presence in which would make him an absentee but for this provision".

 

            The section therefore excludes whoever were residents of East Jerusalem on June 28, 1967 – when Order No. 1 was issued, whereby the law, jurisdiction and administration of the State of Israel were applied to East Jerusalem – from the definition of "absentees" in respect of their property in East Jerusalem (see Mishal, para. 8; Awad, p.429; Benvenisti and Zamir, Private Property, p. 14, 26-28; Zamir and Benvenisti, Jewish Land, p. 87). In addition, the Absentees' Property (Compensation) Law, 5733-1973 (hereinafter: "the Compensation Law") was later enacted to enable residents of Israel, including the residents of East Jerusalem, who are "absentees", to claim compensation for certain property vested in the Custodian (see Zamir and Benvenisti, Jewish Land, pp. 90-91; Benvenisti and Zamir, Private Property, pp. 14, 28-29).

 

The Case of Judea and Samaria Residents

 

24.       Let us now turn to the case before us, of residents of Judea and Samaria who have rights in property in East Jerusalem. As aforesaid, for the purpose of the Law, these properties are located in the area of Israel. The first condition for their "absenteeism" is therefore fulfilled. The second condition is that the owners of the rights in them fall within the scope of one of the alternatives of section 1(b)(1) of the Law. The alternative relevant to the instant case is that mentioned at the end of section 1(b)(1)(ii) of the Law, that an absentee is someone who at any time during the relevant period "was… in any part of Palestine outside the area of Israel." In Judea and Samaria, unlike East Jerusalem, the law, jurisdiction and administration of the State of Israel have never been applied (see, for example, HCJ 390/79 Dwikat v.  Government of Israel, IsrSC 34(1) 1, 13 (1979); Hof Aza Council, pp. 514-560; and also Rubin, pp. 223-225). It is, of course, therefore not the "area of Israel", which is defined in section 1(i) of the Law as "the area in which the law of the State of Israel applies". Some 30 years ago, this Court ruled in Levy that Judea and Samaria is "part of Palestine" within the meaning of section 1(b)(1)(ii) of the Law (ibid., p 381 (Justice A. Halima); cf Crim. App. 5746/06 Abbass v. State of Israel, paras. 5, 8-10 (July 31, 2007), where the meaning of the same expression in the Prevention of Infiltration (Offences and Jurisdiction) Law, 5714-1954 was considered in the particular context of that statute). It should be noted that in Levy the Court dismissed the plea that since Judea and Samaria is actually occupied by the IDF, it should be regarded as held territory in accordance with the Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordinance, 1948 and therefore also as an "area of Israel" for the purpose of the Absentees' Property Law. The Court's conclusion in the Levy case was that properties in East Jerusalem that were owned by the residents of Judea and Samaria should be regarded as "absentees' property". This concept is also reflected in later case law of this Court (see the Golan case, where the Court acted on the assumption that such property is "absentees' property").

 

25.       The said conclusion with regard to property in East Jerusalem does not derive merely from the wording of the Law. It appears that this result also reflects the intention of the legislature, at least since the Legal Regulation Law was enacted. As aforesaid, while the residents of East Jerusalem were excluded by the Legal Regulation Law from the application of the Absentees' Property Law in respect of property located there, a similar step was not taken in respect of the residents of Judea and Samaria. In my opinion, the significance of that cannot be avoided. The very fact that the legislature considered it necessary to prescribe an express arrangement excluding the residents of East Jerusalem from the scope of the Absentees' Property Law (from the date prescribed) demonstrates that, according to it, without such a provision the Law would have applied to them. In other words, this indicates that in its opinion, the Law also applies where the particular property or the owner of the rights in it became "absentee" after the Law's enactment, namely after 1950. This assumption also finds expression in the need that the legislature saw expressly to exclude certain properties from the application of the Absentees' Property Law further to the peace agreement made with Jordan in 1994 (see section 6 of the Peace Agreement with Jordan Law; and also Minutes 312, p. 5658. See also Abu Hatum, para. K.) This approach is in fact consistent with the view that the application of the Law is ongoing and has not yet reached an end (see also Golan, p. 645, where it was stated that "the assumption embodied in the Law is that the fate of absentees' property will be determined in future as a possible consequence of political settlements between the State of Israel and its neighbors". It should also be noted that at the time the Law was enacted, it was stated that it was necessary to enact a permanent law instead of the Emergency Regulations because "it was clear to the members of the committee that even after the emergency ends we shall have to deal with the absentees' property…" (Minutes 119, p. 868)). In view of the foregoing, in my opinion it is not possible to accept the argument that the definition of "the area of Israel" in the Law meant only the area in which Israeli law applied at the time of the Law's enactment, something of a "photograph" or freeze of a given situation that cannot change with time. The same applies to the argument that an express provision of the Law is necessary for it to apply to territory added to the area of the State of Israel after its enactment. The foregoing examples might demonstrate that, in truth, the opposite is the case. In addition, the failure of the legislature to prescribe a broader arrangement in the Legal Arrangements Law or another statute reflects, as I understand it, a conscious decision not to exclude others from the application of the Absentees' Property Law, like for example the residents of Judea and Samaria. That is also the impression that was gained by this Court in Levy (see ibid., pp. 382-383 (per Justice A. Halima). That is also the opinion of the learned authors Zamir and Benvenisti (see Benvenisti and Zamir, Private Property, p. 27; Zamir and Benvenisti, Jewish Land, p. 87)). Accordingly, I do not consider it possible to depart from the case law according to which the Absentees' Property Law does indeed apply to property in East Jerusalem, whose owners are residents of Judea and Samaria. It appears that any other finding would be contrary to the plain meaning of the Law and the intention of the legislature.

 

26.       In this regard, a few words should be devoted to the Jerusalem District Court's judgment in the Dakak caseJudge B. Okon). In that judgment the court considered the difference between the reality in which the Absentees' Property Law was enacted and the circumstances that have arisen in Judea and Samaria following the Six Day War. According to him, "it is difficult to conceive" that the Law should be applied to residents who are under "effective Israeli control" rather than hostile control (ibid., paras. 4-5 of the judgment). Such being the case, it was held that section 1(b)(1)(ii) of the Law, which concerns a person who is "in any part of Palestine outside the area of Israel", does not apply to a resident of areas "that are actually subject to Israeli military control, as distinct, for example, from areas under the military control of a country mentioned in section 1(b)(1)(i) of the Law" (ibid., para. 6). An appeal was filed against the said judgment (CA 2250/06, which is one of the appeals joined in these proceedings (see para. 1 above)). Ultimately, as aforesaid, the appeal was withdrawn after a settlement agreement was reached between the parties. Nevertheless, since the parties in the instant case did consider the said judgment, we have seen proper to explain our reservation as regards the way in which section 1(b)(1)(ii) of the Law was interpreted in Dakak. The said interpretation is not consistent with this Court's findings in Levy or the underlying assumption relied upon in Golan. This fact, per se, raises difficulty (as regards the departure of the trial courts from a binding precedent of the Supreme Court, see, for example, ALA 3749/12 Bar-Oz v. Setter, paras. 18-20 of my opinion (August 1, 2013)). In addition, in my opinion, the interpretation also raises difficulties with respect to the crux of the matter for the reasons detailed above. Moreover, there is substance to the Respondents' arguments that the said interpretation will in any event not exclude from the application of the Law the residents of Judea and Samaria who were Jordanian nationals or citizens or were there at any time since 1947 and have property in Israel. This is in view of the other alternatives of section 1(b)(1) of the Law. According to the Respondents, it appears that a considerable proportion of the residents of Judea and Samaria are involved. However, the interpretation that "extends" the "area of Israel" beyond that provided in the Law raises substantial difficulties. This is in view of the clear wording of the Law, which expressly provides in section 1(i) that the area in which the law of the State of Israel applies is involved, and for other substantial reasons. Moreover, a finding of this type raises complex issues in respect of the exact nature of the terms "area of Israel" and "effective control". Thus, for example, the question could arise as to whether a distinction should be made among the areas of Judea and Samaria that are termed "areas A, B and C", according to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip that was made between the State of Israel and the PLO on September 28, 1995 (for a discussion in a different context on the question of whether a certain area is under the control of the IDF further to the division of the said territories, see, for example, HCJ 2717/96 Wafa v. Ministry Of Defense, IsrSC 50(2) 848 (1996)). This complex question gained no consideration by those in support of using the term "effective control" in the context under discussion. In any event, it appears that this is not the proper place to decide those questions. Moreover, one should be aware that such an interpretation might lead to the Law's application to property not included in it until now. This is because the Law applies to properties in "the area of Israel" (section 1(b)(1) of the Law.) Hence, finding that Judea and Samaria is part of "the area of Israel" might lead to properties located there also becoming "absentees' property".

 

27.       In view of all the foregoing, there is no alternative but to conclude that the Absentees' Property Law does apply to properties in East Jerusalem, the rights in which are owned by residents of Judea and Samaria. However, that is not the end of it. We must consider the way in which the Law is implemented in cases like these.

 

Exercise of the Powers under the Law in the Cases under Discussion

 

28.       The finding that the said properties are "absentees' property" is very problematic, not only at the level of international law but also as regards administrative law. The Respondents do not deny this either. It should be borne in mind that those involved are residents of Judea and Samaria who have become "absentees", not because of any act done by them but because of the transfer of control of East Jerusalem to Israel and the application of Israeli law there. In addition, persons are not involved who are under the control of another state, and they are in areas over which Israel has control – albeit only certain control. In this context, we should bear in mind that in the course of the Law's enactment it was explained that section 1(b)(1)(ii) of the Law meant "people who are in fact not in the area of the State of Israel" (as the Chairman of the Finance Committee, D.Z. Pinkas, MK, said in Minutes 119, p. 868). In this sense, there is indeed a certain similarity between the residents of Judea and Samaria and the residents of East Jerusalem, although an analogy should clearly not be drawn between the cases in view of the difference in the legal status of the two areas. It appears that there is indeed a difference between the case of residents of Judea and Samaria and the case of those for whom the Absentees' Property Law was intended (see also Cochrane, p. 330, where Justice H. Cohn mentioned a person who is "in part of Palestine outside the area of Israel" as one of the cases in which the Law applies to someone who has nothing whatsoever to do with absenteeism). Indeed, there are differences between the residents of Judea and Samaria, the citizens or nationals of the hostile states in section 1(b)(1)(i) of the Law, and a person who deliberately "left his ordinary place of residence in Palestine" in the circumstances described in subparagraph (iii). In fact, the absenteeism of the residents of Judea and Samaria in respect of their property in East Jerusalem derives from the broad wording of the Law and its continuing application, due to the prolonged state of emergency (see paras. 14 and 18 above). It is difficult to believe that this was the type of case intended by the Law, which was, as aforesaid, enacted against the background of specific and exceptional events. The results of applying the Absentees' Property Law in these cases is also particularly harsh having regard to the fact that the residents of Judea and Samaria are not entitled to compensation for their properties that are vested in the Custodian. This is because the right to claim compensation by virtue of the Compensation Law is granted only to residents of Israel (section 2 of the Compensation Law; see also Benvenisti and Zamir, Private Property, pp. 14, 28-29. It must be said that there is a certain similarity between denying a person's rights to his property because it has become absentees' property and the expropriation of land for public purposes (in which connection it should be noted that the view is expressed in the literature that laying down the ability to obtain compensation under the Compensation Law in the case of Israeli residents reinforces the argument that underlying the failure to release absentees' property is a rationale similar to that underlying the acquisition of land for public purposes (see, ibid., p. 14). See also Sandy Kedar, “Majority Time, Minority Time: Land, Nation and the Law of Adverse Possession in Israel,” 21 (3) Iyunei Mishpat  665, 727 (1998)). Nevertheless, while the grant of compensation is one of the major foundations of modern expropriation law (see, for example, CA 8622/07 Rotman v. Ma'atz - Israeli National Public Works Department Ltd, paras. 65-71 of the opinion of Justice U. Vogelman (May 14, 2012)), as regards absentees resident in Judea and Samaria, the legislature has supplied no statutory arrangement to obtain compensation for the property taken from them. This further underlines the difficulty involved in applying the Absentees' Property Law in respect of them. This problem has not been ignored by the various different attorneys general over the years either. Thus, inter alia, on January 31, 2005, the Attorney General, M. Mazuz, wrote to the Minister of Finance, B. Netanyahu, who was the person responsible for the implementation of the Law (hereinafter: "the Mazuz Directive") as follows:

 

            "The absenteeism of property in East Jerusalem of residents of Judea and Samaria is of a technical character since they became absentees because of a unilateral act taken by the State of Israel for a different purpose, when both the properties and their owners were under the control of the State of Israel, and where it would appear that the purposes of the Law are not being fulfilled here. Involved are, in fact, 'attendant absentees', whose rights in their property have been denied due to the broad technical wording of the Law. Moreover, as regards residents of Judea and Samaria whose property in East Jerusalem has become absentees' property, the result is particularly harsh because applying the Law means the denial of the property without any compensation, because the Absentees' Property (Compensation) Law, 5733-1973 grants compensation only to absentees who were residents of the State of Israel at the time of its enactment" (ibid., para. 2).

 

29.       In this context it should be noted that one should be conscious of the fact that the strict implementation of the Law in regard to the residents of Judea and Samaria is also likely to lead to the property in Israel of the residents of Judea and Samaria who are Israeli nationals being regarded as "absentees' property". Thus, for example, according to this interpretation, even a property in Tel Aviv whose owner is a resident of Ariel or Beit El is vested in the Custodian. As aforesaid, in this respect the Respondents argued that the Law can indeed be understood in this way but the Custodian does not apply its provisions in such cases, just as he does not apply them in other cases of persons who lawfully move outside Israel. Let us again emphasize matters because of the extreme result that emerges from the language of the Law: any property in Israel the owner of the rights in which is a resident of Judea and Samaria is absentees' property. Hence, for example, if a debt is owed to a person who resides in Judea and Samaria by a person who resides in Jerusalem as a result of a transaction currently made between them, prima facie the debt is vested in the Custodian. Perhaps it is not superfluous to mention that this is also apt in respect of real estate in Israel of the residents of Judea and Samaria. It should also be emphasized that the Absentees' Property Law takes no interest in the religious characteristics, for example, of the "absentee" and the courts have applied its provisions to Jewish "absentees" more than once (CA 4682/92, Estate of Salim Ezra Shaya, Deceased v. Beit Taltash Ltd, IsrSC 54(5) 252, 279 (per Justice J. Kedmi) (2000)).

 

30.       In view of the said difficulties, the State authorities, under the direction of the  attorneys general, have seen fit to limit the exercise of the Custodian's powers in such cases. The chain of events in this context is described in the MazuzDirective, which was filed in the cases before us. Back in November 1968, not long after the Six Day War, it was decided in a forum headed by the Minister of Justice, under the guidance of the then Attorney General M. Shamgar, that the Law should not be implemented in respect of immovable property of residents of Judea and Samaria in East Jerusalem. Attorney General Shamgar explained the decision in the following way:

 

            "… We have not seen any practical justification for seizing property that has become absentees' property at one and the same time because its owner – who is a resident of Judea and Samaria – has become a subject under the control of the Israeli government authorities. In other words, since the property would not have been absentees' property before the date on which the IDF forces entered East Jerusalem and would not have become absentees' property had East Jerusalem continued to be part of Judea and Samaria, we have not considered it justified for the annexation of East Jerusalem, and it alone, to lead to taking the property of a person, who is not actually an absentee, but from the time his property came into our hands is in territory under the control of the IDF forces". (The letter of August 18, 1969 from Attorney General M. Shamgar to the Israel Land Administration, as cited in the Mazuz Directive).

 

            Over the years, attempts have been made to erode the said directive. In 1977, a forum headed by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Agriculture laid down a temporary arrangement "that would be reviewed in light of the experience of its implementation". According to this arrangement, the residents of Judea and Samaria would be required to apply of their own initiative to the Custodian to continue using their property in East Jerusalem. It later became apparent that the arrangement had not actually been reviewed and that "the Law was being abused" under cover of the arrangement (the Mazuz Directive, para. 4(b); for further discussion, see the Report of the Committee for the Examination of Buildings in East Jerusalem (1992) (hereinafter:  "the Klugman Report")). The 1992 Report also described faults that had occurred in the proceedings to declare properties in East Jerusalem "absentees' property" and it stated that "the functioning of the Custodian of Absentees' Property was very flawed, by any criterion" (ibid., p. 24; see also pp. 12-13, 26). In view of that, it was recommended to make an immediate, comprehensive examination into the functioning of the Custodian. In addition, the Attorney General appointed a team to determine procedures for the exercise of the Custodian's powers (the Klugman Rport, p. 25). Further thereto it was decided to freeze the operation of the Law again and reinstate the previous policy in accordance with the 1968 directive. In 1997, the limitations that had been instituted were again eased and the Custodian was permitted to issue certificates in respect of vacant properties, with the authority of the legal adviser to the Ministry of Finance. As regards occupied properties, the authority of the Ministry of Justice was also required. According to the Mazuz Directive, it appears that only limited use of that power was actually made. In March 2000, a ministerial forum, with the participation of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice and the Minister for Jerusalem Affairs, determined that any transfer of property in East Jerusalem by the Custodian to the Development Authority required approval by the said forum or such person as appointed by it in such respect. In 2004, the Ministerial Committee on Jerusalem Affairs made a decision declaring that it sought to remove all the limitations on the exercise of the Custodian's power in respect of properties in East Jerusalem. It was explained in the decision that the Custodian was vested with powers pursuant to section 19 of the Law, including to transfer, sell or lease real estate in East Jerusalem to the Development Authority (Decision no. J'lem/11 of June 22, 2004; the decision was granted the force of a government decision on July 8, 2004 (Decision no. 2207)). It should be noted that the decision was made contrary to the opinion of the Ministry of Justice and did not include in it the original proposal that the exercise of the said power would necessitate consultation with the legal adviser to the Ministry of Finance or his representative.

 

            In response, at the beginning of 2005, Attorney General M. Mazuz made it clear that the said decision could not be upheld, that it was ultra vires and not within the power and authority of the Ministerial Committee on Jerusalem Affairs. He asked the Minister of Finance to order the immediate cessation of the Law's implementation in respect of the East Jerusalem properties of Judea and Samaria residents and he expressed his opinion that there was no alternative but to reinstate the previous policy, namely to determine that "in general, use will not be made of the powers under the Law in respect of the properties under consideration, except in special circumstances and subject to prior approval by the Attorney General or such person as authorized by him for the purpose" (the Mazuz Directive, para. 6). As we have been informed in these proceedings, that position has also been adopted by the current Attorney General, Y. Weinstein, and it is also the position of the Respondents in the appeals before us (the Respondents' notification of August 28, 2013).

 

31.       Hence, there is in fact no dispute between the parties to these proceedings that the strict implementation of the Law in respect of properties in East Jerusalem, the owners of the rights in which are residents of Judea and Samaria, raises significant difficulties. This has been the opinion of the attorneys general for many years, and the Respondents do not deny it. As aforesaid, the Respondents' position is that the Law does indeed apply to East Jerusalem properties of residents of Judea and Samaria, but it is generally not to be applied in such cases. This is except in special circumstances, after obtaining authority from the Attorney General. The distinction between the application of the Law and its implementation has also found expression in the case law of this Court. Thus, in the Levy case, Deputy President Ben Porat concurred in the ruling that the Absentees' Property Law does apply to properties in East Jerusalem of the residents of Judea and Samaria. However, she noted that although those properties can be regarded as "absentees' property", the question might arise as to whether the powers of the Custodian in accordance with the Law ought to be exercised in the circumstances. This is given the fact that persons are involved are under IDF control and but for the annexation of their land for the sake of united Jerusalem, they would not have been regarded as "absentees" (ibid., p. 390). This is also consistent with the approach in the Cochrane case. As aforesaid, in that case, despite the difficulties that Justice H. Cohn saw in the broad application of the Law deriving from its sweeping wording, he did not seek to find that the Law does not apply. Instead, he explained that the solution to the cases in which the problem arises is to be found in the power granted to the administrative authorities to exclude certain parties from the application of the Law or to release absentees' property (see sections 27-29 of the Law)).

 

32.       This approach is also essentially acceptable to us. As we have detailed, it cannot be held that the Law does not apply to properties in East Jerusalem whose owners are residents of Judea and Samaria. Nevertheless, the powers that are granted by the Law in those cases should be exercised scrupulously and with extreme. In my opinion, in view of the difficulties mentioned above, it is inappropriate to exercise those powers in respect of the said properties, except in the most exceptional of situations. In addition, even where it is decided to take action in accordance with the Law – and as aforesaid, those cases ought to be exceedingly rare – the same will necessitate obtaining prior authority from the Attorney General himself, together with a decision of the Government or its ministerial committee approving the same. We thereby in fact adopt the restrictions in respect of the policy of implementing the Law that the Respondents have long been assuming. This is with the supplemental requirement that any act in accordance with the Law in respect of those properties should also be reviewed and approved by the government or a ministerial committee. Let us explain that we have considered it appropriate to entrench in case law the policy that has long been adopted, according to the Respondents, in this respect and even to make it more stringent, since experience shows that the restraints prescribed have not always been observed and in view of the repeated attempts to erode them, as aforesaid. Moreover it should be borne in mind that any decision to implement the Law in a particular case is, in any event, subject to judicial review.

 

33.       We would also note that insofar as the competent authorities believe that there is a justified need to acquire ownership of property of the type under consideration, they have available to them means other than the Absentees' Property Law that enable them to do so. Thus, for example, the Acquisition Ordinance and various provisions of the Planning and Building Law, 5725-1965 (see, for example, chapter 8 of the said Law, which concerns expropriations). Hence, the restraints that have been prescribed above do not block the way of the authorities to acquire rights in the properties under consideration by virtue of other statutory arrangements, provided that there is justification therefor, and that the conditions prescribed by law are fulfilled. Clearly, statutory tools like those mentioned are preferable to implementing the Absentees' Property Law. In other words, the Absentees' Property Law should only be applied, if at all, after all the other options under the various different expropriation statutes have been exhausted. This is in view of the problems that the Law raises and the fact that the other arrangements that we have mentioned are generally more proportionate.

 

34.       Prima facie, a ruling similar to that reached by us could also have been reached by the course delineated in the Ganimat case, that is to say by adopting a new approach to the interpretation of the Absentees' Property Law along the lines of the Basic Laws, despite the Validity of Laws rule in section 10 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. However, since the determinations with regard to the Absentees' Property Law and its interpretation do not depend upon the Basic Law, there is no need to consider a move based on section 10 as aforesaid (see HCJ 7357/95 Barki Feta Humphries (Israel) Ltd v. State of Israel, IsrSC 50(2) 769, 781 (per Justice M. Cheshin) (1996)). As aforesaid, my decision does not relate to the constitutional aspect or the validity of the provisions of the Absentees' Property Law, but is at the administrative level concerning the way in which the powers by virtue thereof are exercised. Incidentally, it should to be noted that human rights existed before the Basic Laws, and those rights are, in my opinion, more than sufficient to lead to the conclusion that we have reached.

 

The Application of the Judgment in Time

 

35.       The final issue that is left for us to address is that of the of this judgment application in time. In our decision of September 11, 2013, we permitted the parties to supplement their briefs in regard to the application in time of a possible judicial finding that the Law does not apply in respect of residents of Judea and Samaria who have properties in East Jerusalem. Ultimately, our conclusion is, as aforesaid, that although the Law does apply to such properties, it is subject to very stringent restraints with regard to its exercise. Nevertheless, in view of the possible implications of our other finding that, in general, the powers under the Law should only be exercised in very exceptional cases, we think it proper to consider the application in time of this judgment (see HCJ 3514/07 Mivtahim Social Insurance Institute of the Workers Ltd v. Fiorst, para. 33 and the references there (per President (ret.) D. Beinisch) (May 13, 2012)). Although the parties' arguments related to the commencement date of a (possible) rule that the Law does not apply in the instant situations, they are still relevant to the rule laid down with regard to the way in which the Law is implemented. Consequently, we shall briefly cite the parties' main arguments on the application in time, insofar as they are relevant to the ruling that we have ultimately reached.

 

36.       The Respondents oppose the possibility that a case-law rule – if laid down – according to which the Law does not apply in respect of properties in East Jerusalem of the residents of Judea and Samaria would apply retrospectively. In their view, the practice of interpretation applied by them for many years, in accordance with the case law, should be respected. By that practice, the Custodian has been vested with many properties and he has transferred some of them to third parties over the years. According to them, at the present time it is difficult to produce accurate data on the number of properties, out of all the properties that have been transferred to the Custodian, which belong to the said category. In addition, they emphasize that various parties have relied on the said interpretation, and the Respondents also insist on the need for certainty and stability where rights in land are involved. They warn that adopting such an interpretation with retrospective application would lead to extensive litigation and might also have implications at the political level. The Appellants, for their part, reject the Respondents' position. They argue that there is nothing to stop applying a new interpretation to a statute that substantially harms a particular population merely on the ground that it was customary for many years. In addition, according to them, the position of the State authorities in this respect has not been consistent and uniform throughout the years, and at certain times it has departed from the "customary practice" asserted by the Respondents. In their view, following the judgment in the Dakak case, the practice changed and it cannot be said that a "customary regime that is clear to everyone" is involved. Moreover, the Appellants assert that the Respondents did not substantiate the plea that the rule should not be applied retrospectively, or supply any factual data in support of the argument that changing the rule of law "backwards" will infringe the interest of reliance. Furthermore, in the Appellants' opinion, under the circumstances, the interest of changing the law supersedes the interest of reliance. In this regard, they state that the amount of land involved is fixed and is not going to change, and that third parties who, by the actions of the Custodian, have enjoyed property rights that are not theirs should be deemed as unjustly enricheds.

 

37.       Having considered all the factors in this respect, we have reached the overall conclusion that the holdings of this judgment should only be applied prospectively (for a discussion on delaying the avoidance of an administrative decision and relative avoidance, see CFH 7398/09 Jerusalem Municipality v. Clalit Health Services, paras. 29 and 51 (April 14, 2015)). This is in the following sense: if by the time of the handing down of this our judgment, the competent authorities have not done any act in accordance with the Law in respect of a property in East Jerusalem whose owner is a resident of Judea and Samaria, then henceforth the powers by virtue of the Law should not be exercised, except in extraordinary cases and even then after exhausting other options, for example under the Acquisition Ordinance. If it is indeed decided to take action in accordance with the Absentees' Property Law, the same will necessitate obtaining prior authority from the Attorney General himself and also from theGovernment or its ministerial committee. As already mentioned, absentees' property is automatically vested in the Custodian from the moment that it fulfils the definition of "absentees' property", and the same does not necessitate the taking of any action by the Custodian. Consequently, the question of what is "an act in accordance with the Law" as aforesaid might arise. I mean the exercise of any power under the Law that is subject to judicial review, which has been performed by the competent authorities in, or in respect of a property, provided that there is written documentation thereof. It should be emphasized that "the requirement of writing" is a precondition for finding that a particular property is exempt from the application of the determinations in this judgment. The acts, the commission of which will lead to the conclusion that the property is subject to the previous law, will, for example, include steps to care for, maintain, repair or develop the held property, as mentioned in section 7 of the Law; moves that have been taken in the management of a business or partnership instead of the absentee (sections 8, 24, 25 of the Law); transferring the rights in the property to another, including to the Development Authority; discharging debts or performing obligations relating to absentees' property (as provided in section 20 of the Law); the Custodian's presenting written requirements in respect of the property to its owner (for example as provided in section 21(e) of the Law or section 23(c) of the Law; the issue of orders (for example of the type mentioned in section 11 of the Law); the giving of certificates (such as certificates under sections 10 and 30 of the Law); and incurring expenses and conducting legal proceedings in respect of the property. Moreover, the new rule will of course not apply to properties that constitute "held property", namely property that the Custodian actually holds, including property acquired in exchange for vested property (see section 1(g) of the Law). It should be emphasized that these are mere examples of acts in respect of properties as regards which further to their commission this judgment will not apply, and it is not an exhaustive list.

 

38.       The foregoing new requirements that are to be met henceforth will not apply where, prior to the award of the judgment, powers have already been exercised in accordance with the Absentees' Property Law in respect of particular property. In such cases, the law that applied prior to this judgment will apply. In such connection, the authorities will of course be bound by the restrictive policy that the Attorney General laid down with regard to the implementation of the Law in those cases. This means that where an act as described above has already been done in respect of a property of the type with which we are concerned, the mere fact that the new rules that we have laid down have not been performed will not be regarded as a defect, and certainly not a defect that would to lead to the avoidance of the decisions or acts that have been made or done in respect of the property. This finding is intended to contend with the concern that has been raised with regard to retroactive changes of the rules that applied to the land policy in East Jerusalem and to avoid "reopening" transactions made in respect of those properties, with the difficulties involved therein both materially and evidentially. In this context, we have taken into account the possibility that in a substantial proportion of cases, transactions that have long been completed and even "chains" of transactions will be involved. A different ruling might have led to ownership chaos, the flooding of the courts with lawsuits, the impairment of legal certainty and the infringement of a very large public's reliance interest. It should be noted that this approach is also consistent with the spirit of section 17 (a) of the Law, which provides that transactions that have been made by the Custodian in good faith in respect of property that was mistakenly regarded as vested property shall not be invalidated (for a discussion of this section, see, for example, Makura Farm, pp. 17-25; CA 1501/99 Derini v. Ministry of Finance, para. 4 (December 20, 2004); CA 5685/94 Amutat ELAD El Ir David v. Estate of Ahmed Hussein Moussa Alabsi, Deceased, IsrSC 53(4) 730 (1999), in which it was held that the Custodian had acted in an absence of good faith in respect of realty in East Jerusalem that he sold to the Development Authority, and the transaction was therefore invalid).

 

39.       In any event, the cases concerning absentees' property, in respect of which action has already been taken as aforesaid by the Custodian, should be resolved by means of "the release course" prescribed in sections 28 and 29 of the Law. The problems of implementing the Law in respect of properties of the type under consideration should also be borne in mind by the competent entity when deciding on the release of properties (see also Golan, p. 646). In other words, where it is sought to release one of the said properties to which this judgment does not apply, the Special Committee and the Custodian ought to give substantial weight to the difficulties involved in viewing them as "absentees' property", and also to the restrictive policy that is to be adopted, in accordance with which the Law is to be implemented in respect of them. Consequently, preference should be given to the release of property in specie. To complete the picture, we would mention that we have been informed by the Respondents in the hearings in these proceedings that rules have been laid down for the exercise of the Special Committee's discretion in accordance with section 29 of the Law with regard to the release of absentees' property in East Jerusalem of Judea and Samaria residents. According to them, the rules have been formulated along the lines of the Attorney General's position described above. The Respondents believe that a fitting solution will thereby be given in the majority of the cases under consideration, leaving room for the necessary flexibility in sensitive deliberations of this type. We have not considered it appropriate to relate to the actual rules that have been established, as they are not the focus of these proceedings, and bearing in mind that the power to address those matters is vested in the High Court of Justice (see Lulu, para. 8). Insofar as there are objections to the rules that have been laid down, they should be heard in the appropriate proceedings, rather than in the instant ones.

 

The Cases before Us

 

40.       Against the background of these general statements, we shall now rule on the cases before us. Implementing the findings mentioned above in the concrete cases before us leads to the conclusion that the properties under consideration do indeed constitute absentees' property. Properties are involved that are situated in the area of Israel, within the meaning of the Law, whose owners are residents of Judea and Samaria. Hence, the alternative of section 1(b)(1)(ii) of the law is fulfilled in respect of them. Consequently, the Appellants' pleas in both appeals aimed against the finding that Property 1 and Property 2 are absentees' property are dismissed.

 

            The Appellants' alternative application in CA 5931/06 is for us to order the release of Property 1 in accordance with section 28 of the Law. As a condition for exercising the power to release property, a recommendation of the Special Committee under section 29 of the Law is necessary (see also Golan, p. 641). As aforesaid, incidental to these proceedings, the Committee deliberated about the release of Property 1. According to the Respondents, the land involved in the dispute was sold to third parties on "market overt conditions" and the Custodian now only holds the proceeds of sale. The Special Committee recommended releasing the proceeds received for the property only to those of the Appellants who are residents of Judea and Samaria and still alive, and supplemental particulars in respect of the Appellants who have died were requested. As already mentioned, the way in which the Committee's powers have been exercised is subject to review by the High Court of Justice rather than this Court sitting as a court of civil appeals (Lulu, para. 8). Hence, insofar as the Appellants in CA 5931/06 have complaints with regard to the Special Committee's decision, the instant proceedings are not the appropriate forum. In any event, and without making any ruling, we would comment that, under the circumstances, it appears that ruling on the rights in Property 1 necessitates factual enquiry and the consideration of legal questions that were not decided in the judgment of the District Court or argued before us. That being the case, the application to order the release of the property involved in CA 5931/06 is dismissed.

 

            The Appellants in CA 2038/09 have applied for us to order the avoidance of Property 2's seizure and its restitution to them, inter alia in view of their arguments in respect of the Respondents' conduct in the case. As aforesaid, from the moment that a property fulfils the conditions for being "absentees' property", the rights in it are vested in the Custodian, including the power to seize the property. Having determined that "absentees' property" is involved it can only be returned to its original owners in the ways delineated in the Law, with the emphasis on the possibility of release under sections 28-29 of the Law. We would mention that the Special Committee also deliberated upon the release of Property 2. The Committee recommended the release of the parts of the property that had not been seized for the construction of the security fence, and to transfer the consideration for the part seized to the Appellants, who are residents of Judea and Samaria and, according to it, those who held it continuously until its seizure. In accordance with the foregoing, insofar as the Appellants in CA 2038/09 have complaints in such respect or with regard to the seizure of the property for the construction of the fence, the the instant proceedings are not the appropriate forum. Such being the case, the Appellants' application in CA 2038/09 that we order the avoidance of the seizure of the property involved in the appeal and its restoral to them is dismissed.

 

Conclusion

 

41.       Accordingly, my opinion is that there is no alternative but to conclude that the Absentees' Property Law applies to properties in East Jerusalem owned by residents of Judea and Samaria who enjoy or hold them. This is despite the considerable problem raised by treating them as "absentees' property". In this context, we should be conscious of the fact that the strict implementation of the Law's provisions to residents of Judea and Samaria is also likely to lead to serious results as regards residents of Judea and Samaria who are Israeli nationals, whose property in Israel is prima facie regarded as "absentees' property". Alongside this, the substantial difficulties are of significance in the context of exercising the powers under the Law in respect of such property. Consequently, I would suggest to my colleagues to find that the competent authorities must, in general, refrain from exercising the powers by virtue of the Law in respect of the properties under consideration. As such, I have not considered it appropriate to seal the fate of such property and prevent any possibility of implementing the Law in regard to that property. Our assumption is that there may be cases, albeit exceedingly rare, in which it might be justified to take such steps in respect of properties in East Jerusalem of the residents of Judea and Samaria. In those cases, the performance of any act in accordance with the Law will necessitate obtaining prior approval from the Attorney General himself and a decision of the Government or its ministerial committee. This amounts to the adoption of the restrictive policy assumed by the Respondents over the years, with a certain stringency in the form of adding the requirement for the Government's approval. This judgment, and in particular the finding with regard to the restrictions obliged when exercising the powers by virtue of the Law in respect of such property, will only apply prospectively, in the following sense:

 

            (a)       If by the time of the handing down of this judgment, the competent authorities have not done any act by virtue of the Absentees' Property Law in respect of a particular property in East Jerusalem owned by a resident of Judea and Samaria, the findings prescribed in this judgment will apply. Accordingly, the authorities will not be able to take steps in accordance with the Law in respect of the property without the prior authority of the Attorney General and without the approval of the Government or its ministerial committee. In mentioning an "act by virtue of the Law" we mean any act that is subject to judicial review and an act in accordance with the Law, like in the non-exhaustive list of acts contained in para. 37 above, provided always that there is written documentation.

 

            (b)       These requirements will not apply in cases where, prior to this judgment, acts in accordance with the Law were done by the competent authorities in respect of property in East Jerusalem owned by a resident of Judea and Samaria. In those cases, the previous law will apply, including the restrictive rules that have been laid down by the Attorney General in respect of the exercise of the said powers. This means that non-performance of the new conditions that we have just prescribed will not, per se, be regarded as a defect in the administrative act, and will not be such as, per se, to lead to the avoidance of the steps taken in respect of the property or to the "reopening" of transactions already made in respect of it. In such cases, the way is open to release the absentees' property along the course prescribed in sections 28-29 of the Law. When the competent authorities come to decide on the release of such properties, they must take into account the great problem involved in those properties being "absentees' property".

 

42.       In the cases before us, I would suggest to my colleagues that we dismiss the appeals. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order for costs.

 

Justice S. Joubran

 

1.         I agree with the thorough and comprehensive opinion of my colleague, President (ret.) A. Grunis, but would like to add a few words on the application of the Basic Laws as a tool in the interpretation of old legislation. In my opinion, a ruling similar to that of my colleague the President (ret.) could have been reached by an interpretation of old legislation "in the spirit of the Basic Laws", as I shall explain below, and as my colleague Deputy President E. Rubinstein has detailed in his opinion in these proceedings.

 

2.         In my view, the Basic Laws give the judge an appropriate tool of interpretation when questions of interpretation in respect of the provisions of law arise. The Validity of Laws provision in section 10 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty provides that "this Basic Law shall not affect the validity of any law in force prior to the commencement of the Basic Law". That is to say that so long as there was existing law prior to the commencement of the Basic Laws, its validity is preserved. However, in my opinion, it is not to be inferred from that provision that the Basic Laws are not to be used as a tool for the interpretation of existing law when that law is not clear and its validity is in any event dubious. The Basic Laws have given our legal system an arrangement of fundamental principles, which I believe can, and frequently should, be referred to when we are reviewing the proper interpretation or legal policy.

 

3.         Using the Basic Laws as an interpretive tool can, in my opinion, give substance to the principles and rights that are under consideration in existing legislation, and properly analyze the balance between them. I believe that such will not impair the validity of the existing law but will conceptualize their substance in a more balanced and organized discourse (cf. CFH 2316/95 Ganimat v. State of Israel, IsrSC 49(4) 589, paras. 7-12 of the opinion of Justice M. Cheshin (1995) (hereinafter: Ganimat)). So too, for example, Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation distinguishes between the validity of provisions of legislation and the interpretation of the provisions that "will be made in the spirit of the provisions of this Basic Law" (section 10 of Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation). According to Justice (as he then was) A. Barak, this is obliged as an interpretive conclusion in the context of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty even without an express provision (and see: Ganimat, para. 6 of the opinion of Justice A. Barak). In this respect, his statement there is apt:

 

            "The constitutional status of the Basic Law radiates to all parts of Israeli law. This radiation does not pass over the old law. It, too, is part of the State of Israel's law. It, too, is part of its fabric. The constitutional radiation that stems from the Basic Law affects all parts of Israeli law. It necessarily influences old law as well. In truth, the validity of the old law is preserved. The radiation of the Basic Law upon it is therefore not as strong as it is upon new law. The latter might be avoided if it is contrary to the provisions of the Basic Law. The old law is protected against avoidance. It has a constitutional canopy that protects it. However the old law is not protected against a new interpretative perspective with regard to its meaning. Indeed, with the enactment of the Basic Laws on human rights there has been a material change in the field of Israeli law. Every legal sapling in that field is influenced by that change. Only in that way will harmony and uniformity be achieved in Israeli law. The law is a set of interrelated tools. Changing one of those tools affects them all. It is impossible to distinguish between old and new law as regards the interpretative influences of the Basic Law. Indeed, all administrative discretion that is granted in accordance with the old law should be exercised along the lines of the Basic Laws; all judicial discretion that is granted in accordance with the old law should be exercised in the spirit of the Basic Laws; and in this context, every statutory norm should be interpreted with the inspiration of the Basic Law" (Ganimat, para. 7 of the opinion of Justice A. Barak).

 

            My view is similar to that of Justice A. Barak and I believe, as aforesaid, that in the event that a question of interpretation arises in respect of the provisions of the law, recourse should be made to the Basic Laws, and inspiration drawn from them. In his opinion, my colleague the President (ret.) did not consider the said interpretative approach (and see para. 34 of his opinion, above) but since in the instant case we still reach a similar ruling by his method, I shall add my voice to his opinion.

 

4.         Together with all the foregoing, I concur with the opinion of my colleague President (ret.) A. Grunis.

 

Justice Y. Danziger

 

            I concur in the opinion of my colleague President (ret.) A. Grunis, who proposes to dismiss the appeals before us without any order for costs.

 

            Like my colleague, I too believe that, as a rule, the competent authorities should avoid exercising the powers by virtue of the Absentees' Property Law, 5710-1950 in respect of properties in East Jerusalem whose owners are residents of Judea and Samaria and hold or enjoy them.

 

            As regards those exceptional cases – "exceedingly rare" as my colleague defines them – when there might be justification for exercising the power, I concur with the solution proposed by my colleague, according to which the exercise of the power should be conditional upon obtaining prior approval from the Attorney General, accompanied by an approbative decision of the Government or its ministerial committee.

 

            I therefore concur in the opinion of my colleague, including his findings with regard to the prospective application of the restraints therein, as set out in paras. 41(a) and (b) of his opinion.

 

President M. Naor

 

1.         I concur in the judgment of my colleague President (ret.) A. Grunis. In my opinion, it is very doubtful whether there can, in fact, be an "exceedingly rare" case, in the words of my colleague, where it will be justified to implement the Law in respect of properties in East Jerusalem of the residents of Judea and Samaria.

 

2.         I would explain that in my view, even someone whose case has already been considered in the past by the Special Committee is entitled to apply to it again further to the fundamental observations in this judgment. As my colleague has noted, its decision is subject to review by the High Court of Justice.

 

Deputy President E. Rubinstein

 

A.        I accept the result reached by my colleague President (ret.) A. Grunis in his comprehensive opinion. This is a complex issue which involves the intricacies of the political situation in our region for which a solution has unfortunately not yet been found, and it touches on other issues involved in the dispute with our neighbors, including the refugee question, which is one of the most difficult issues, and the definition of "absentees' property" has a certain relevance thereto. As evidence of this is the fact that, over the years, various different parties have considered the matter, including attorneys general, as my colleague described, and they have sought a modus operandi that will be as fair as possible to all those concerned. That is to say that they will not go into the delicate political issues that go beyond the legal action but will be cautious and moderate in the operative implementation of legal absenteeism; and as my colleague now proposes, the same should only be with the approval of the Attorney General and the Government or a ministerial committee. That is to say that it will be considered very carefully.

 

B.        An example of the complexity and intricacy involved in the matter of absenteeism, which generally awaits the end of the dispute, is the need that arose when the peace agreement with Jordan was made in 1994 (and I would duly disclose that I headed the Israeli delegation in the negotiations on the peace agreement with Jordan) to enact the Implementation of the Peace Agreement Between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom Law, 5755-1995. The Law dealt with various matters, but section 6 prescribed as follows:

 

            "(a)     Notwithstanding as provided in the Absentees' Property Law, 5710-1950, with effect from Kislev 7, 5755 (November 19, 1994) property shall not be considered absentees' property merely because of the fact that the owner of the right thereto was a citizen or national of Jordan or was in Jordan after the said date.

 

            (b)       The provision of subsection (a) shall not alter the status of property that became absentees' property in accordance with the said Law prior to the date specified in subsection (a)"

 

            (See CA 4630/02 Custodian of Absentees' Property v. Abu Hatum (2007), para. K, which my colleague also cited.)

 

            Note that in section 6(b), as quoted above, it was provided that "the watershed" for the changes was the date of the peace agreement and no change was made to what preceded it; and in the explanatory notes on section 6 (Draft Laws 5755, 253), it was stated that "the status of properties that were absentees' property before the peace agreement will not alter". Section 6 therefore resolved difficulties that might have arisen in accordance with the legal position existing after making the peace agreement but not in respect of the past – "what was, will be" until times change. So too, mutatis mutandis, in the instant case, cautiously and moderately.

 

C.        I would also concur in principle with the observation of my colleague Justice S. Joubran with regard to the use of the Basic Laws on rights as a tool for the interpretation of the legislation to which the Validity of Laws provision in Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (section 10 of the Basic Law) applies. It provides that "this Basic Law shall not affect the validity of any law in force prior to the commencement of the Basic Law". Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty has been with us for more than two decades. During that period, this Court has time and again repeated the rule laid down in Ganimat to which my colleagues have referred, to the effect that "the constitutional radiation that stems from the Basic Law affects all parts of Israeli law. It necessarily influences old law as well" (para. 7 of the opinion of Justice (as he then was) A. Barak; see also A. Barak, “Basic Laws and Fundamental Values – the Constitutionalisation of the Legal System Further to the Basic Laws and its Effects on Criminal Law,” in Selected Writings I 455, 468-469 (5760) (Hebrew)).

 

D.        Further thereto, this principle has been applied in the interpretation of ordinances, statutes and regulations that predate the Basic Law. Thus, for example, it has been held that the Contempt of Court Ordinance (1929) and the Religious Courts (Enforcement of Obedience) Law, 5716-1956 should be interpreted "in light of the provisions of the Basic Law", MCA 4072/12 Anonymous v. Great Rabbinical Court, para. 24 of the opinion of Justice Zylbertal (2013); so too the Crime Register and Rehabilitation of Offenders Law, 5741-1981 (CFH 9384/01 Nasasreh v. Israel Bar, IsrSC 59(4) 637, 670 (2004); The Execution Law, 5727-1967 (CA 9136/02 Mr. Money Israel Ltd v. Reyes, IsrSC 58(3) 934, 953 (2004); The Protection of Privacy Law, 5741-1981 (HCJ 8070/98 Association for Civil Rights in Israel v. Ministry of the Interior, IsrSC 58(4) 842, 848 (2004); the Defence (Emergency) Regulations 1945 (HCJ 8091/14 Center for the Defence of the Individual v. Minister of Defense, paras. 18 and 27 (2014); and so on and so forth. This is ethically anchored in what, in a different context, I happened to call "the spirit of the age" (AA 5939/04 Anonymous v. Anonymous, IsrSC 59(1) 665 (2004)), that is to say, giving case-law expression to the social developments in various spheres.

            It should be emphasized that this has also been laid down concretely with regard to the right of property, which stands at the center of the instant case. In fact, even before the well-known finding of Justice Barak in Ganimat, and even prior to the "constitutional revolution" in CA 6821/93 United Mizrahi Bank Ltd. v. Migdal Cooperative Village, IsrSC 49(4) 221 (1995) [http://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/opinions/united-mizrahi-bank-v-migdal-cooper..., Justice – as he then was – S. Levin held as follows: "With the enactment of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty the normative weight of the right of property has risen to the position of a fundamental right. The provision in section 3 of the said Law that 'there shall be no infringement of a person's property' also carries weight when we come to interpret existing provisions of law…" (ALA 5222/93 Block 1992 Building Ltd v. Parcel 168 in Block 6181 Company Ltd, para. 5 (1994); and see also A. Barak, Legal Interpretation, volume III – Constitutional Interpretation, 560-563 (5754) (Hebrew); S. Levin, The Law of Civil Procedure (Introduction and Fundamentals), 33-35 (second edition, 5768-2008) (Hebrew)).

 

E.         And now to the case before us. There can be no question that the language of the Absentees' Property Law, 5710-1950 is not consistent with the right of property in section 3 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. That infringement is, in the instant case, compounded by section 2 of the Absentees' Property (Compensation) Law, 5733-1973, which, as the President (ret.) stated, does not permit residents of the territory of Judea and Samaria to claim compensation for the properties that have been transferred to the Custodian of Absentees' Property. Indeed, under the provision of section 10 of the Basic Law we do not set upon a review of the constitutionality of the infringement: whether it is consistent with the values of the State of Israel, whether it is for a proper purpose and whether it is proportional (section 8 of the Law); and my colleague discussed at length the purpose of the Law and its answer to a complex problem that has not yet been resolved, but it can be said that what is called the "right of return" argument, with all its extensive derivatives, cannot be resolved by judicial interpretation. At the Camp David Summit in 2000, I was a member of the Israeli delegation and chaired the subcommittee that dealt with the subject of the refugees, and there was no doubt in Israel's position (which was also supported by the USA) that denied the very basis of that right as being "national suicide". Indeed, based on the case law that the Court has restated numerous times as aforesaid, the provisions of the relevant statute are to be interpreted in accordance with Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. In the instant case, it appears that my colleague the President, despite not expressing an opinion on interpretation along the lines of the Basic Law in accordance with that stated in Ganimat, did in fact draw, what in my opinion is, a proper balance in accordance with the Basic Law when he determined the application of the Absentees' Property Law to the properties involved herein, and that in the instant circumstances, limited use should be made of the Absentees' Property Law, subject to various authorizations and approvals, and after the options included in other statutes have been exhausted (para. 33 of the President's opinion). I have considered it proper to add the foregoing in order to emphasize the importance of the determination in Ganimat and the scope of its application.

 

F.         Given the foregoing, I therefore concur in the opinion of my colleague President (ret.) A. Grunis, which balances between not upsetting a complex legal position, on the one hand, and great caution on the other, by means of a dual safety belt in operative decisions concerning the implementation of the Law in individual circumstances.

 

Justice H. Melcer

 

1.         I concur in the opinion of my colleague President (ret.) A. Grunis and with the remarks of my colleagues. Nevertheless, I am allowing myself to add a few comments of my own.

 

2.         My colleague President (ret.) A. Grunis writes in para. 20 of his opinion, inter alia, as follows:

 

            "In my opinion, it is certainly possible that at least some of the arrangements in the Law (the Absentees' Property (Compensation) Law, 5733-1973 – my clarification – H. Melcer), were they enacted today, would not meet the constitutional criteria. Nevertheless, in the instant case, the provisions of the limiting paragraph are not such as to help or to alter the conclusion with regard to the application of the Law in the cases under consideration here. This is in view of the Validity of Laws rule in section 10 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, according to which the Basic Law does not affect the validity of any law that existed prior to its entry into force. This provision does not make it possible to find that any provision of the Law is void ".

 

            In para. 34 of his opinion President (ret.) A. Grunis goes on to say, in respect of the conclusions reached by him:

 

            “Prima facie, a ruling similar to that reached by us could also have been reached by the course delineated in the Ganimat case, that is to say by adopting a new approach to the interpretation of the Absentees' Property Law along the lines of the Basic Laws, despite the Validity of Laws rule in section 10 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. However, since the determinations with regard to the Absentees' Property Law and its interpretation do not depend upon the Basic Law, there is no need to consider a move based on section 10 as aforesaid (see HCJ 7357/95 Barki Feta Humphries (Israel) Ltd v. State of Israel, IsrSC 50(2) 769, 781 (per Justice M. Cheshin) (1996)). As aforesaid, my decision does not relate to the constitutional aspect or the validity of the provisions of the Absentees' Property Law, but is at the administrative level concerning the way in which the powers by virtue thereof are exercised. Incidentally, it should to be noted that human rights existed before the Basic Laws, and those rights are, in my opinion, more than sufficient to lead to the conclusion that we have reached.”

 

 

            Although it was not necessary in all the circumstances herein specifically to consider a move based on section 10 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, the same was possible, and it also supports the result and is even proper, as was stated by my colleagues: Deputy President E. Rubinstein, Justice S. Joubran and Justice E. Hayut.

 

            Prof. Aharon Barak recently developed an approach of this type in the interpretation given by him to section 10 of the said Basic Law in his paper, Validity of Laws (an article that is due to be published in the Beinisch Volume – hereinafter referred to as "Validity of Laws"). Further to Prof. Barak's said article, I too stated in my opinion in FH 5698/11 State of Israel v. Mustfafa Dirani (January 15, 2015), as follows:

 

            "Even if the 'Validity of Laws' section contained in Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty did apply here, in my opinion that does not mean that the law that has been assimilated as aforesaid, has been "frozen" and it can certainly be altered (according to its normative source and the power to do so) by interpretation or 'adaptation' to the normative environment that has been created further to the values of the Basic Laws, or due to changing times in the world (especially in a case such as this, which involves the war on terror), because 'validity is one thing and meaning is another', see HCJ 6893/05 MK Levy v. Government of Israel, IsrSC 59(2) 876, 885 (2005). In such a case, the "adaptation" or "alteration" should have regard to the 'respect provision' contained in section 11 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, and the 'limiting paragraph' of the said Basic Law. See Aharon Barak Human Dignity, The Constitutional Right and Its 'Daughter' Rights, volume I, 392-396 (5774-2014) (Hebrew); Barak, Validity of Laws, the text at footnote 23, and also page 24 ibid. Along these lines, one should also read the development, made by my colleague the President, of the rule that the lawsuit of an enemy national should not be tried by 'adapting it' to the present day and the necessary war on terror, in accordance with the requirements of section 8 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty" (ibid., para. 16).

 

3.         The practical difference between the foregoing two courses is of importance with regard to the future (in respect of the present, both ways lead to the same result, as aforesaid).

 

            The constitutional course, just like the international-law course, might perhaps in future – if peace settlements are reached with our neighbors – open a way to special arrangements at various different levels on a reciprocal basis, including mutual compensation, as part of a broader package, in view of "the regulatory takings" (to use the American terminology), and the taking of Jewish property in similar circumstances in Arab countries. A somewhat similar process was given expression in legislation further to the making of the peace agreement with Jordan in 1994, of which my colleague the Deputy President, Justice E Rubinstein was one of the architects (see the Implementation of the Peace Agreement Between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom Law, 5755-1995), and also in some of the countries of Eastern Europe after the changes of regime that occurred there.

 

            Section 12 of the Prescription Law, 5718-1958 (hereinafter: "the Prescription Law”) may be relevant in this respect in the appropriate conditions and with reciprocity. It provides as follows:

 

"In calculating the period of prescription, any time during which the plaintiff was the guardian or ward of the defendant shall not be taken into account".

 

            Also relevant are other provisions of the Prescription Law – section 14 of the statute (which specifically mentions property vested in the Custodian of Absentees' Property in the definition of "party"), and also section 16 of the same law which talks of extending the prescription period after the interruption has ended – in the instant case, according to sections 12 and 14 of the Prescription Law. (For an interpretation of the said sections, see Tal Havkin, Prescription, 213-216, 221-227, 239-240 (2014)(Hebrew)).

 

4.         In conclusion, I would say that the future and the hope that it embodies for peace settlements at this stage raise nothing more than expectations, while the present unfortunately dictates, at most, the legal result that my colleague President (ret.) A. Grunis has presented, in which we have all concurred.

 

Justice E. Hayut

 

1.         I concur in the judgment of my colleague President (ret.) A. Grunis and also the comment by my colleague Deputy President M. Naor, who casts great doubt with regard to the very existence of an "exceedingly rare" case that would justify the implementation of the Absentees' Property Law, 5710-1950, in respect of properties in East Jerusalem that belong to residents of Judea and Samaria. I also share her approach that persons whose case has been considered by the Special Committee in the past should be permitted to apply to it again to review their case in accordance with the principles that have been delineated in this judgment.

 

2.         The examples presented by my colleague President (ret.) A. Grunis in para. 18 of his opinion well illustrate the great difficulty raised by the Law because of its broad scope, alongside the great problems that arise at the international and administrative law levels with regard to its application in cases like those before us (see para. 28 of my colleague President (ret.) A. Grunis's opinion). These difficulties have led us to choose the course of "a rule that is not to be taught"[2] or, to be more precise, "a statute that is not to be taught". This course is perhaps an inevitable necessity given the rigid statutory position that currently exists (cf. Attorney General Directive No. 50.049 of January 1, 1972 with regard to the filing of indictments for an offence of homosexuality in accordance with section 152 of the Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936. Also compare Crim.App. 4865/09 Adv. Avigdor Feldman v. Tel Aviv District Court, paras. 7-8 (July 9, 2009)), but it is important to emphasize that it, too, raises considerable problems because in countries such as ours where the rule of law applies, the provisions of law and the values that the State seeks to apply and enforce are expected to be compatible.

 

3.         Finally, I would concur with the comments of my colleagues Justice S. Joubran, Justice E. Rubinstein and Justice H. Melcer as regards the principles of interpretation to be applied in respect of the legislation that preceded the Basic Laws to which the Validity of Laws provision applies (see, for example, section 10 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty). These principles of interpretation were considered by this Court in CFH 2316/95 Ganimat v. State of Israel, IsrSC 49(4) 589 (1995), since when it has applied them again in its rulings more than once. In the instant case, my colleague President (ret.) A. Grunis, has, in his own way, reached a result that is consistent with these principles of interpretation, and I have therefore seen no need to expand on the matter.

 

            Decided unanimously as stated in the opinion of President (ret.) A. Grunis.

 

            Given this 26th day of Nissan 5775 (April 15, 2015)

 

The President (ret.)	The President		The Deputy President
Justice	Justice	Justice	Justice

 

 

           

 

 

           

 

                                                                                                                       

 

 

 

 

 

Petition denied.

23 Tevet 5769.

19 January 2009.

 

 

 

CrimA 6659/06

CrimA 1757/07

CrimA 8228/07

  CrimA 3261/08

 

1 . A

2.  B

v

State of Israel

 

 

The Supreme Court sitting as the Court of Criminal Appeals

[5 March 2007]

Before President D. Beinisch and Justices E.E. Levy, A. Procaccia

 

 

Appeals of the decisions of the Tel-Aviv-Jaffa District Court (Justice Z. Caspi) on 16 July 2006, 19 July 2006, 13 February 2007 and 3 September 2007, and the decision of the Tel-Aviv-Jaffa District Court (Justice D. Rozen) on 20 March 2008.

 

Legislation cited:

Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law, 5762-2002

Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law, 5739-1979

 

Israel Supreme Court cases cited:

[1]        CrimFH 7048/97 A v. Minister of Defence [2000] IsrSC 44(1) 721.

[2]        HCJ 4562/92 Zandberg v. Broadcasting Authority [1996] IsrSC 50(2) 793.

[3]        HCJ 9098/01 Ganis v. Ministry of Building and Housing [2005] IsrSC 59(4) 241; [2004] IsrLR 505.

[4]        HCJ 769/02 Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel (2006) (unreported).

[5]         HCJ 393/82 Jamait Askan Almalmoun Altaounia Almahdouda Almasaoulia Cooperative Society v. IDF Commander in Judaea and Samaria [1983] IsrSC 37(4) 785.

[6]        HCJ 2056/04 Beit Sourik Village Council v. Government of Israel [2004] IsrSC 58(5) 807; [2004] IsrLR 264.

[7]        HCJ 7015/02 Ajuri v. IDF Commander in West Bank [2002] IsrSC 56(6) 352; [2002-3] IsrLR 83.

[8]        HCJ 3239/02 Marab v. IDF Commander in Judaea and Samaria [2003] IsrSC 57(2) 349; [2002-3] IsrLR 173.

[9]        HCJ 7957/04 Marabeh v. Prime Minister of Israel [2006] IsrSC 60(2) 477; [2005] (2) IsrLR 106. 

[10]      HCJ 7052/03 Adalah Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel v. Ministry of the Interior (2006) (not yet reported); [2006] (1) IsrLR 442.

[11]      HCJ 2599/00 Yated, Children with Down Syndrome Parents Society v. Ministry of Education [2002] IsrSC 56(5) 834.

[12]      HCJ 4542/02 Kav LaOved Worker's Hotline v. Government of Israel [2006] (1) IsrLR 260.

[13]      HCJ 9132/07 Elbassiouni v. Prime Minister (2008) (unreported).

[14]      ADA 8607/04 Fahima v. State of Israel [2005] IsrSC 59(3) 258.

[15]      HCJ 554/81 Beransa v. Central Commander [1982] IsrSC 36(4) 247.

[16]      HCJ 11026/05 A v. IDF Commander (2005) (unreported).

[17]       CrimA 3660/03 Abeid v. State of Israel (2005) (unreported).

[18]      HCJ 1853/02 Navi v. Minister of Energy and National Infrastructures (2003) (unreported).

[19]      HCJ 6055/95 Tzemach v. Minister of Defense [1999] IsrSC 53(5) 241; [1998-9] IsrLR 635.

[20]      HCJ 4827/05 Man, Nature and Law - Israel Environmental Protection Society v. Minister of the Interior (2005) (unreported).

[21]      CA 7175/98 National Insurance Institute v. Bar Finance Ltd (in liquidation) (2001) (unreported).

[22]      HCJ 5319/97 Kogen v. Chief Military Prosecutor [1997] IsrSC 51(5) 67; [1997] IsrLR 499.

[23]      CrimA 4596/05 Rosenstein v. State of Israel (2005) (unreported); [2005] (2) IsrLR 232.

[24]      CrimA 4424/98 Silgado v. State of Israel [2002] IsrSC 56(5) 529.

[25]      HCJ 1661/05 Gaza Coast Regional Council v. Knesset [2005] IsrSC 59(2) 481.

[26]      HCJ 4769/95 Menahem v. Minister of Transport [2003] IsrSC 57(1) 235.

[27]      HCJ 3434/96 Hoffnung v. Knesset Speaker [1996] IsrSC 50(3) 57.

[28]      HCJ 6893/05 Levy v. Government of Israel [2005] IsrSC 59(2) 876.

[29]      HCJ 5016/96 Horev v. Minister of Transport [1997] IsrSC 51(4) 1; [1997] IsrLR 149.

[30]      HCJ 5627/02 Saif v. Government Press Office [2004] IsrSC 58(5) 70; [2004] IsrLR 191.

[31]      EA 2/84 Neiman v. Chairman of Central Elections Committee for Tenth Knesset [1985] IsrSC 39(2) 225;  IsrSJ 8 83.

[32]      CA 6821/93 United Mizrahi Bank Ltd. v. Migdal Cooperative Village [1995] IsrSC 49(4) 221.

[33]      HCJ 450/97 Tenufa Manpower and Maintenance Services Ltd. v. Minister of Labour and Social Affairs [1998] IsrSC 52(2) 433.

[34]      AAA 4436/02 Tishim Kadurim Restaurant, Members' Club v. Haifa Municipality [2004] IsrSC 58(3) 782.

[35]      HCJ 2967/00 Arad v. Knesset [2000] IsrSC 54(2) 188.

[36]      CrimApp 8780/06 Sarur v. State of Israel (2006) (unreported).

[37]      HCJ 403/81 Jabar v. Military Commander [1981] IsrSC 35(4) 397.

[38]      HCJ 102/82 Tzemel v. Minister of Defence [1983] IsrSC 37(3) 365.

[39]      ADA 4794/05 Ufan v. Minister of Defence (2005) (unreported).

[40]      ADA 7/94 Ben-Yosef v. State of Israel (1994) (unreported).

[41]      ADA 8788/03 Federman v. Minister of Defence [2004] IsrSC 58(1) 176.

[42]      HCJ 5445/93 Ramla Municipality v. Minister of the Interior [1996] IsrSC 50(1) 397.

[43]        HCJ 2159/97 Ashkelon Coast Regional Council v. Minister of the Interior [1998] IsrSC 52(1) 75.

[44]      HCJ 253/88 Sajadia v. Minister of Defence [1988] IsrSC 42(3) 801.

[45]      ADA 334/04 Darkua v. Minister of the Interior [2004] IsrSC 58(3) 254.

[46]      HCJ 4400/98 Braham v. Justice Colonel Shefi [1998] IsrSC 52(5) 337.

[47]      HCJ 11006/04 Kadri v. IDF Commander in Judaea and Samaria (2004) (unreported).

[48]      CrimApp 3514/97 A v. State of Israel (1997) (unreported).

[49]      HCJ 5994/03 Sadar v. IDF Commander in West Bank (2003) (unreported).

[50]      CrimA 5121/98 Yissacharov v. Chief Military Prosecutor [2006]  (unreported), 2006 (1) IsrLR 320.

[51]      HCJ 3412/93 Sufian v. IDF Commander in Gaza Strip [1993] IsrSC 47(2) 843.

[52]      HCJ 6302/92 Rumhiah v. Israel Police [1993] IsrSC 47(1) 209.

[53]         HCJ 2901/02 Centre for Defence of the Individual v. IDF  Commander in West Bank [2002] IsrSC 56(3) 19.

[54]    CrimA 1221/06 Iyyad v. State of Israel (2006) (unreported).

 

 

For the appellants - H. Abou-Shehadeh

For the respondent - Z. Goldner, O.J. Koehler, S. Nitzan, Y. Roitman.

 

JUDGMENT

 

President D. Beinisch:

Before us are appeals against the decisions of the Tel-Aviv-Jaffa District Court (Justice Z. Caspi), in which the internment of the appellants under the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law, 5762-2002 (hereinafter: "the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law" or "the Law") was upheld as lawful. Apart from the particular concerns of the appellants, the appeals raise fundamental questions concerning the interpretation of the provisions of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law and the extent to which the Law is consistent with international humanitarian law, as well as the constitutionality of the arrangements prescribed in the Law.

The main facts and sequence of events

1.  The first appellant is an inhabitant of the Gaza Strip, born in 1973, who was placed under administrative detention on 1 January 2002 by virtue of the Administrative Detentions (Temporary Provision) (Gaza Strip Region) Order (no. 941), 5748-1988. The detention of the first appellant was extended from time to time by the Military Commander and upheld on judicial review by the Gaza Military Court. The second appellant is also an inhabitant of Gaza, born in 1972, and he was placed under administrative detention on 24 January 2003 pursuant to the aforesaid Order. The detention of the second appellant was also extended from to time and reviewed by the Gaza Military Court.

On 12 September 2005 a statement was issued by the Southern District Commander with regard to the end of military rule in the region of the Gaza Strip. On the same day, in view of the change in circumstances and also the change in the relevant legal position, internment orders were issued against the appellants; these were signed by the Chief of Staff by virtue of his authority under s. 3 of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law, on which the case before us focuses. On 15 September 2005 the internment orders were brought to the notice of the appellants. At a hearing that took place pursuant to the Law, the appellants indicated that they did not wish to say anything, and on 20 September 2005 the Chief of Staff decided that the internment orders under the aforesaid Law would remain in force.

2.  On 22 September 2005 a judicial review hearing began in the Tel-Aviv-Jaffa District Court (Justice Z. Caspi) in the appellants' case. On 25 January 2006 the District Court held that there had been no defect in the procedure of issuing internment orders against the appellants, and that all the conditions laid down in the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law were satisfied, including the fact that their release would harm state security. The appellants appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, and on 14 March 2006 their appeal was denied (Justice E. Rubinstein). In the judgment it was held that the material presented to the court evinced the appellants' clear association with the Hezbollah organization, as well as their participation in acts of combat against the citizens of Israel prior to their detention. The court emphasized in this context the personal threat presented by the two appellants and the risk that they would resume their activities if they were released, as could be seen from the material presented to the court.

3.  On 9 March 2006 the periodic judicial review pursuant to s. 5(c) of the Law began in the District Court. In the course of this review, not only were the specific complaints of the appellants against their internment considered, but also fundamental arguments against the constitutionality of the Law, in the framework of an indirect attack on its provisions. On 16 July 2006 the District Court gave its decision with regard to the appellant's specific claims. In this decision it was noted that from the information that was presented to the court it could be seen that the appellants were major activists in the Hezbollah organization who would very likely return to terrorist activities if they were released now, and that their release was likely to harm state security. On 19 July 2006 the District Court gave its decision on the fundamental arguments raised by the appellants concerning the constitutionality of the Law. The District Court rejected the appellants' argument in this regard too, and held that the Law befitted the values of the State of Israel, its purpose was a proper one and its violation of the appellants' rights was proportionate. The court said further that in its opinion the Law was also consistent with the principles of international law. The appeal in CrimA 6659/06 is directed at these two decisions of 16 July 2006 and 19 July 2006.

On 13 February 2007 the District Court gave a decision in a second periodic review of the appellants' detention. In its decision the District Court approved the internment orders, discussed the appellants' importance to the activity of the Hezbollah organization as shown by the testimonies of experts who testified before it and said that their detention achieved a preventative goal of the first order. The appeal in CrimA 1757/07 is directed at this decision.

On 3 September 2007 the District Court gave its decision in the third periodic review of the appellants' internment. In its decision the District Court noted that the experts remained steadfast in their opinion that it was highly probable that the two appellants would resume their terrorist activity if they were released, and as a result the operational abilities of the Hezbollah infrastructure in the Gaza Strip would be enhanced and the risks to the State of Israel and its inhabitants would increase. It also said that the fact that the Hamas organization had taken control of the Gaza Strip increased the aforesaid risks and the difficulty of contending with them. The court emphasized that there was information with regard to each of the appellants concerning their desire to resume terrorist activity if they were released, and that they had maintained their contacts in this area even while they were imprisoned. In such circumstances, the District Court held that the passage of time had not reduced the threat presented by the appellants, who were the most senior persons in the Hezbollah terrorist infrastructure in the Gaza Strip, and that there was no basis for cancelling the internment orders made against them. The appeal in CrimA 8228/07 is directed at this decision.

On 20 March 2008 the District Court gave its decision in the fourth periodic review of the appellants' detention. During the hearing, the court (Justice D. Rozen) said that the evidence against each of the two appellants contained nothing new from recent years. Nevertheless, the court decided to approve their continued internment after it found that each of the two appellants was closely associated with the Hezbollah organization; both of them were intensively active in that organization; the existing evidence regarding them showed that their return to the area was likely to act as an impetus for terrorist attacks, and the long period during which they had been imprisoned had not reduced the danger that they represent. The appeal in CrimA 3261/08 was directed at this decision.

Our judgment therefore relates to all of the aforesaid appeals together.

The arguments of the parties

4.  The appellants' arguments before us, as in the trial court, focused on two issues: first, the appellants raised specific arguments concerning the illegality of the internment orders that were made in their cases, and they sought to challenge the factual findings reached by the District Court with regard to their membership in the Hezbollah organization and their activity in that organization against the security of the State of Israel. Secondly, once again the appellants indirectly raised arguments of principle with regard to the constitutionality of the Law. According to them, the Law in its present format violates the rights to liberty and dignity enshrined in Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, in a manner that does not satisfy the conditions of the limitation clause in the Basic Law. The appellants also claimed that the Law is inconsistent with the rules of international humanitarian law that it purports to realize. Finally the appellants argued that the end of Israel's military rule in the Gaza Strip prevents it, under the laws of war, from detaining the appellants.

The state's position was that the petitions should be denied. With regard to the specific cases of the appellants, the state argued that the internment orders in their cases were made lawfully and they were in no way improper. With regard to the arguments in the constitutional sphere, the state argued that the law satisfies the tests of the limitation clause in Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, since it was intended for a proper purpose and its violation of personal liberty is proportionate. With regard to the rules of international law applicable to the case, the state argued that the Law is fully consistent with the norms set out in international law with regard to the detention of "unlawful combatants".

5.  In order to decide the questions raised by the parties before us, we shall first address the background that led to the enactment of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law and its main purpose. With this in mind, we shall consider the interpretation of the statutory definition of "unlawful combatant" and the conditions that are required to prove the existence of a ground for detention under the law. Thereafter we shall examine the constitutionality of the arrangements prescribed in the law and finally we shall address the specific detention orders made in the appellants' cases.

The Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law - background to its enactment and its main purpose

6.  The Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law gives the state authorities power to detain "unlawful combatants" as defined in s. 2 of the Law, i.e. persons who participate in hostile acts or who are members of forces that carry out hostile acts against the State of Israel, and who do not fulfil the conditions that confer prisoner of war status under international humanitarian law. As will be explained below, the Law allows the internment of foreign persons who belong to a terrorist organization or who participate in hostile acts against the security of the state, and it was intended to prevent these persons from returning to the cycle of hostilities against Israel.

The original initiative to enact the Law arose following the judgment in CrimFH 7048/97 A v. Minister of Defence [1], in which the Supreme Court held that the state did not have authority to hold Lebanese nationals in detention by virtue of administrative detention orders, if the sole reason for their detention was to hold them as "bargaining chips" in order to obtain the release of captives and missing servicemen. Although the original bill came into being against the background of a desire to permit the holding of prisoners as "bargaining chips", the proposal underwent substantial changes during the legislative process after many deliberations on this matter in the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, chaired by MK Dan Meridor. On 4 March 2002, the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law was passed by the Knesset. Its constitutionality has not been considered by this court until now.

At the outset it should be emphasized that the examination of the historical background to the enactment of the Law and the changes that were made to the original bill, what was said during the Knesset debates, the wording of the Law as formulated at the end of the legislative process, and the effort that was made to ensure that it conformed to the provisions of international humanitarian law evident from the purpose clause of the statute, which we shall address below -  all show that the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law as it crystallized in the course of the legislative process was not intended to allow hostages to be held as "bargaining chips" for the purpose of obtaining the release of Israeli captives and missing servicemen being held in enemy territory, as alleged by the appellants before us. The plain language of the Law and its legislative history indicate that the Law was intended to prevent a person who endangers the security of the state due to his activity or his membership of a terrorist organization from returning to the cycle of combat. Thus, for example, MK David Magen, who was chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee at the time of the debate in the plenum of the Knesset prior to the second and third readings, said as follows:

'The draft law is very complex and as is known, it gave rise to many disagreements during the Committee's deliberations. The Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee held approximately ten sessions at which it discussed the difficult questions raised by this Bill and considered all the possible ramifications of its passing the second and third readings. The Bill before you is the result of considerable efforts to present an act of legislation whose provisions are consistent with the rules of international humanitarian law and which satisfies the constitutional criteria, while being constantly mindful of and insistent upon maintaining a balance between security and human rights...

I wish to emphasize that the Bill also seeks to determine that a person who is an unlawful combatant, as defined in the new Law, will be held by the state as long as he represents a threat to its security. The criterion for interning a person is that he is dangerous. No person should be interned under the proposal as a punishment or, as many tend to think erroneously, as a bargaining chip. No mistake should be made in this regard. Nonetheless, we should ask ourselves whether it is conceivable that the state should release a prisoner who will return to the cycle of hostilities against the State of Israel?' [emphasis added].

The Law was therefore not intended to allow prisoners to be held as "bargaining chips". The purpose of the Law is to remove from the cycle of hostilities a person who belongs to a terrorist organization or who participates in hostile acts against the State of Israel. The background to this is the harsh reality of murderous terrorism, which has for many years plagued the inhabitants of the state, harmed the innocent and indiscriminately taken the lives of civilians and servicemen, the young and old, men, women and children. In order to realize the aforesaid purpose, the Law applies only to persons who take part in the cycle of hostilities or who belong to a force that carries out hostile acts against the State of Israel, and not to innocent civilians. We shall return to address the security purpose of the Law below.

Interpreting the provisions of the Law

7. As we have said, in their arguments before us the parties addressed in detail the question of the constitutionality of the arrangements prescribed in the Law. In addition, the parties addressed at length the question of whether the arrangements prescribed in the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law are consistent with international law. The parties addressed this question, inter alia, because in s. 1 of the Law, which is the purpose section, the Law states that it is intended to realize its purpose "in a manner that is consistent with the commitments of the State of Israel under the provisions of international humanitarian law." As we shall explain below, this declaration is a clear expression of the basic outlook prevailing in our legal system that the existing law should be interpreted in a manner that is as consistent as possible with international law.

In view of the two main focuses of the basic arguments of the parties before us - whether the arrangements prescribed in the Law are constitutional and whether they are consistent with international humanitarian law - we should clarify that both the constitutional scrutiny from the viewpoint of the limitation clause and the question of compliance with international humanitarian law may be affected by the interpretation of the arrangements prescribed in the Law. Before deciding on the aforesaid questions, therefore, we should first consider the interpretation of the principal arrangements prescribed in the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law. These arrangements will be interpreted in accordance with the language and purpose of the Law, and on the basis of two interpretive presumptions that exist in our legal system: one, the presumption of constitutionality, and the other, the presumption of interpretive compatibility with the norms of international law - both those that are part of Israeli law and those that Israel has taken upon itself amongst its undertakings in the international arena.

8.  Regarding the presumption of constitutionality: in our legal system the legislature is presumed to be aware of the contents of the Basic Laws and their ramifications for every statute that is enacted subsequently. According to this presumption, the examination of a provision of statute involves an attempt to interpret it so that it is consistent with the protection that the Basic Laws afford to human rights. This realizes the presumption of normative harmony, whereby "we do not assume that a conflict exists between legal norms, and every possible attempt is made to achieve 'uniformity in the law' and harmony between the various norms" (A. Barak, Legal Interpretation - the General Theory of Interpretation (1992), at p. 155). In keeping with the presumption of constitutionality, we must, therefore, examine the meaning and scope of the internment provisions in the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law while aspiring to uphold, insofar as possible, the provisions of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. It should immediately be said that the internment powers prescribed in the Law significantly and seriously violate the personal liberty of the prisoner. This violation is justified in appropriate circumstances in order to protect state security. However, in view of the magnitude of the violation of personal liberty, and considering the exceptional nature of the means of detention that are prescribed in the Law, an interpretive effort should be made in order to minimize the violation of the right to liberty as much as possible so that it is proportionate to the need to achieve the security purpose and does not go beyond this. Such an interpretation will be compatible with the basic conception prevailing in our legal system, according to which a statute should be upheld by interpretive means and the court should refrain, insofar as possible, from setting it aside on constitutional grounds. In the words of President A. Barak:

'It is better to achieve a reduction in the scope of a statute by interpretive means rather than  having to achieve the same reduction by declaring a part of a statute void because it conflicts with the provisions of a Basic Law.... A reasonable interpretation of a statute is preferable to a decision on the question of its constitutionality' (HCJ 4562/92 Zandberg v. Broadcasting Authority [2], at p. 812; see also HCJ 9098/01 Ganis v. Ministry of Building and Housing [3], at p. 276).

9. With respect to the presumption of conformity to international humanitarian law: as we have said, s. 1 of the Law declares explicitly that its purpose is to regulate the internment of unlawful combatants "… in a manner that is consistent with the commitments of the State of Israel under the provisions of international humanitarian law." The premise in this context is that an international armed conflict prevails between the State of Israel and the terrorist organizations that operate outside Israel (see HCJ 769/02 Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel [4], at paras. 18, 21; see also A. Cassese, International Law (second edition, 2005), at p. 420).

The international law that governs an international armed conflict is anchored mainly in the Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (1907) (hereinafter: "the Hague Convention") and the regulations appended to it, whose provisions have the status of customary international law (see HCJ 393/82 Jamait Askan Almalmoun Altaounia Almahdouda Almasaoulia Cooperative Society v. IDF Commander in Judaea and Samaria [5], at p. 793; HCJ 2056/04 Beit Sourik Village Council v. Government of Israel [6], at p. 827; HCJ 7015/02 Ajuri v. IDF Commander in West Bank [7], at p. 364; Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949 (hereinafter: "Fourth Geneva Convention"), whose customary provisions constitute a part of the law of the State of Israel and some of which have been considered in the past by this court (Ajuri v. IDF Commander in West Bank [7], at page 364; HCJ 3239/02 Marab v. IDF Commander in Judaea and Samaria [8]; HCJ 7957/04 Marabeh v. Prime Minister of Israel [9], at para. 14); and the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 1977 (hereinafter: "First Protocol"), to which Israel is not a party, but whose customary provisions also constitute a part of the law of the State of Israel (see Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel [4], at para. 20). In addition, where there is a lacuna in the laws of armed conflict set out above, it is possible to fill it by resorting to international human rights law (see Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel [4], at para. 18; see also Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996) ICJ Rep. 226, at page 240; Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 43 ILM 1009 (2004)).

It should be emphasized that no one in this case disputes that an explicit statutory provision enacted by the Knesset overrides the provisions of international law (see in this regard President A. Barak in HCJ 7052/03 Adalah Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel v. Ministry of the Interior [10], at para. 17). However, according to the presumption of interpretive consistency, an Israeli act of legislation should be interpreted in a manner that is consistent, insofar as possible, with the norms of international law to which the State of Israel is committed (see HCJ 2599/00 Yated, Children with Down Syndrome Parents Society v. Ministry of Education [11], at p. 847; HCJ 4542/02 Kav LaOved Worker's Hotline v. Government of Israel [12], at para. 37). According to this presumption, which as we have said is clearly expressed in the purpose clause of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law, the arrangements prescribed in the Law should be interpreted in a manner that is as consistent as possible with the international humanitarian law that governs the matter.

Further to the aforesaid it should be noted that when we approach the task of interpreting provisions of the statute in a manner consistent with the accepted norms of international law, we cannot ignore the fact that the provisions of international law that exist today have not been adapted to changing realities and to the phenomenon of terrorism that is changing the face and characteristics of armed conflicts and those who participate in them (see in this regard the remarks of President A. Barak in Ajuri v. IDF Commander in West Bank [7], at pp. 381-382). In view of this, we should do our best to interpret the existing laws in a manner that is consistent with the new realities and the principles of international humanitarian law.

10.  Bearing all the above in mind, let us now turn to the interpretation of the statutory definition of "unlawful combatant" and of the conditions required for proving the existence of cause for internment under the Law. The presumption of constitutionality and the provisions of international law to which the parties referred will be our interpretive tools and they will assist us in interpreting the provisions of the Law and in evaluating the nature and scope of the power of internment it prescribes.

The definition of "unlawful combatant" and the scope of its application

11. S. 2 of the Law defines "unlawful combatant" as follows:

'Definitions

2.  In this law -

"unlawful combatant" - a person who has participated either directly or indirectly in hostile acts against the State of Israel or is a member of a force perpetrating hostile acts against the State of Israel, where the conditions prescribed in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War with respect to granting prisoner of war status in international humanitarian law, do not apply to him;

This statutory definition of "unlawful combatant" relates to those who take part in hostile acts against the State of Israel or who are members of a force that perpetrates such acts, and who are not prisoners of war under international humanitarian law. In this regard two points should be made: first, from the language of the aforesaid s. 2 it is clear that it is not essential for someone to take part in hostile acts against the State of Israel; his membership in a "force perpetrating hostile acts" - i.e., a terrorist organization - may include that person within the definition of "unlawful combatant". We will discuss the significance of these two alternatives in the definition of "unlawful combatant" below (para. 21 .).

Secondly, as noted above, the purpose clause in the Law refers explicitly to the provisions of international humanitarian law. The definition of "unlawful combatant" in the aforesaid s. 2 also refers to international humanitarian law when it provides that the Law applies to a person who does not enjoy prisoner of war status under the Third Geneva Convention. In general, the rules of international humanitarian law were not intended to apply to the relationship between the state and its citizens (see, for example, the provisions of art. 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, according to which a "protected civilian" is someone who is not a citizen of the state that is holding him in circumstances of an international armed conflict). The explicit reference by the legislature to international humanitarian law, together with the stipulation in the wording of the Law that prisoner of war status does not apply, show that the Law was intended to apply only to foreign parties who belong to a terrorist organization that acts against the security of the state. We are not unaware that the draft law of 14 June 2000 contained an express provision stating that the Law would not apply to Israeli inhabitants (and also to inhabitants of the territories), except in certain circumstances that were set out therein (see s. 11 of the Internment of Enemy Forces Personnel Who Are Not Entitled to a Prisoner of War Status Bill, 5760-2000, Bills 5760, no. 2883, at p. 415). This provision was omitted from the final wording of the Law. Nevertheless, in view of the explicit reference in the Law to international humanitarian law and the laws concerning prisoners of war as stated above, the inevitable conclusion is that according to its wording and purpose, the Law was not intended to apply to local parties (citizens and residents of Israel) who endanger state security. For these other legal measures exist that are intended for a security purpose, which we shall address below.

It is therefore possible to sum up and say that an "unlawful combatant" under s. 2 of the Law is a foreign party who belongs to a terrorist organization that acts against the security of the State of Israel. This definition may include residents of a foreign country that maintains a state of hostilities against the State of Israel, who belong to a terrorist organization that acts against the security of the State and who satisfy the other conditions of the statutory definition of "unlawful combatant". This definition may also include inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, which today is no longer under belligerent occupation. In this regard it should be noted that since the end of Israeli military rule in the Gaza Strip in September 2005, the State of Israel has no permanent physical presence in the Gaza Strip, and it also has no real possibility of carrying out the duties of an occupying power under international law, including the main duty of maintaining public order and security. Any attempt to impose the authority of the State of Israel on the Gaza Strip is likely to involve complex and prolonged military operations. In such circumstances, where the State of Israel has no real ability to control what happens in the Gaza Strip in an effective manner, the Gaza Strip should not be regarded as a territory that is subject to belligerent occupation from the viewpoint of international law, even though the unique situation that prevails there imposes certain obligations on the State of Israel vis-?-vis the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip (for the position that the Gaza Strip is not now subject to a belligerent occupation, see Yuval Shany, "Faraway So Close: The Legal Status of Gaza after Israel's Disengagement," 8 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 2005 (2007) 359; see also the judgment of the International Court of Justice in Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda, where the importance of a physical presence of military forces was emphasized for the existence of a state of occupation: Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda (ICJ, 19 December 2005), at para.173; with regard to the existence of certain obligations that the State of Israel has in the prevailing circumstances vis-?-vis the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, see HCJ 9132/07 Elbassiouni v. Prime Minister [13]. In our case, in view of the fact that the Gaza Strip is no longer under the effective control of the State of Israel, we must conclude that the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip constitute foreign parties who may be subject to the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law in view of the nature and purpose of this Law.

With regard to the inhabitants of the territory (Judaea and Samaria) that is under the effective control of the State of Israel, for the reasons that will be stated later (in para. 36 below), I tend to the opinion that insofar as necessary for security reasons, the administrative detention of these inhabitants should be carried out pursuant to the security legislation that applies in the territories and not by virtue of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law. However, the question of the application of the aforesaid Law to the inhabitants of the territories does not arise in the circumstances of the case before us and it may therefore be left undecided.

Conformity of the definition of "unlawful combatant" to a category recognized by international law

12. The appellants argued that the definition of "unlawful combatant" in s. 2 of the Law is contrary to the provisions of international humanitarian law, since international law does not recognize the existence of an independent and separate category of "unlawful combatants". According to their argument, there are only two categories in international law - "combatants" and "civilians", who are subject to the provisions and protections enshrined in the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions respectively. In their view international law does not have an intermediate category that includes persons who are not protected by either of these conventions.

With regard to the appellants' aforesaid arguments we would point out that the question of the conformity of the term "unlawful combatant" to the categories recognized by international law has already been addressed in our case law in Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel [4], in which it was held that the term "unlawful combatants" does not constitute a separate category, but rather, a sub-category of "civilians" recognized by international law. This conclusion is based on the approach of customary international law, according to which the category of "civilians" includes everyone who is not a "combatant". We are therefore dealing with a negative definition. In the words of President A. Barak:

 'The approach of customary international law is that "civilians" are persons who are not "combatants" (see article 50(1) of the First Protocol, and Sabel, supra, at page 432). In the Blaskic case, the International Tribunal for War Crimes in Yugoslavia said that civilians are "persons who are not, or no longer, members of the armed forces" (Prosecutor v. Blaskic (2000), Case IT-95-14-T, at paragraph 180). This definition is of a "negative" character. It derives the concept of "civilians" from it being the opposite of "combatants". Thus it regards unlawful combatants, who as we have seen are not "combatants", as civilians' (ibid., at para. 26 of the opinion of President A. Barak).

In this context, two additional points should be made: first, the determination that "unlawful combatants" belong to the category of "civilians" in international law is consistent with the official interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, according to which in an armed conflict or a state of occupation, every person who finds himself in the hands of the opposing party is entitled to a certain status under international humanitarian law - the status of prisoner of war, which is governed by the Third Geneva Convention, or the status of protected civilian, which is governed by the Fourth Geneva Convention:

'There is no "intermediate status"; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law' (O. Uhler and H. Coursier (eds.), Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War: Commentary (ICRC, Geneva, 1950), commentary to art. 4, at page 51).

(See also S. Borelli, 'Casting Light on the Legal Black Hole: International Law and Detentions Abroad in the "War on Terror",' 87(857) IRRC 39 (2005), at pp. 48-49).

Secondly, it should be emphasized that prima facie, the statutory definition of "unlawful combatants" under s. 2 of the Law applies to a broader group of people than the group of "unlawful combatants" discussed in Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel [4], in view of the difference in the measures under discussion: the judgment in Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel [4] considered the legality of the measure of a military attack intended to cause the death of an "unlawful combatant". According to international law, it is permitted to attack an "unlawful combatant" only during the period of time when he is taking a direct part in the hostilities. By contrast, the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law deals with the measure of internment. For the purposes of internment under the Law, it is not necessary for the "unlawful combatant" to participate directly in the hostilities, nor is it essential that the internment take place during the period of time that he is participating in hostile acts; all that is required is that the conditions of the definition of "unlawful combatant" in s. 2 of the Law are proved. This statutory definition does not conflict with the provisions of international humanitarian law since, as we shall clarify clear below, the Fourth Geneva Convention also permits the detention of a protected "civilian"' who endangers the security of the detaining state. Thus we see that our reference to the judgment in Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel [4] was not intended to indicate that an identical issue was considered in that case. Its purpose was to support the finding that the term "unlawful combatants" in the Law under discussion does not create a separate category of treatment from the viewpoint of international humanitarian law; rather, it constitutes a sub-group of the category of "civilians".

13.   Further to our finding that "unlawful combatants" belong to the category of "civilians" from the viewpoint of international law, it should be noted that this court has held in the past that international humanitarian law does not grant "unlawful combatants" the same degree of protection to which innocent civilians are entitled, and that in this respect there is a difference from the viewpoint of the rules of international law between "civilians" who are not "unlawful combatants" and "civilians" who are "unlawful combatants". (With regard to the difference in the scope of the protection from a military attack upon "civilians" who are not "unlawful combatants" as opposed to "civilians" who are "unlawful combatants", see Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel [4], at paras. 23-26). As we shall explain below, in the present context the significance of this is that someone who is an "unlawful combatant" is subject to the Fourth Geneva Convention, but according to the provisions of the aforesaid Convention it is possible to apply various restrictions to them and inter alia to detain them when they represent a threat to the security of the state.

In concluding these remarks it should be noted that although there are disagreements on principle between the parties before us as to the scope of the international laws that apply to "unlawful combatants", including the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the scope of the rights of which they may be deprived for security reasons under art. 5 of the Convention, we are not required to settle most of these disagreements. This is due to the state's declaration that in its opinion the Law complies with the most stringent requirements of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and because of the assumption that the appellants enjoy all the rights that are enshrined in this Convention (see paras. 334 and 382 of the state's response).

14.  In summary, in view of the purpose clause of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law, according to which the Law was intended to regulate the status of "unlawful combatants" in a manner that is consistent with the rules of international humanitarian law, and bearing in mind the finding of this court in Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel [4] that "unlawful combatants" constitute a subcategory of "civilians" under international law, we are able to determine that, contrary to the appellants' claim, the Law does not create a new reference group from the viewpoint of international law; it merely determines special provisions for the detention of "civilians" (according to the meaning of this term in international humanitarian law) who are "unlawful combatants".

The nature of internment of "Unlawful Combatants" under the Law - administrative detention

15. Now that we have determined that the definition of "unlawful combatant" in the Law is not incompatible with division into the categories  of "civilians" as opposed to "combatants"' in international law and in the case law of this court, let us proceed to examine the provisions of the Law that regulate the internment of unlawful combatants. S. 3(a) of the law provides the following:

 

'Internment of Unlawful Combatant

3. (a) Where the Chief of Staff has reasonable cause to believe that a person being held by state authorities is an unlawful combatant and that his release will harm state security, he may issue an order under his hand, directing that such person be interned at a place to be determined (hereinafter: "internment order"); an internment order shall include the grounds for internment, without prejudicing state security requirements.'

S. 7 of the Law adds a probative presumption in this context, which provides as follows:

'Presumption

 7.  For the purposes of this Law, a person who is a member of a force perpetrating hostile acts against the State of Israel or who has participated in hostile acts of such a force, either directly or indirectly, shall be deemed to be a person whose release would harm state security as long as the hostile acts of such force against the State of Israel have not yet ceased, unless proved otherwise.'

The appellants argued before us that the internment provisions in the Law create, de facto, a third category of detention, which is neither criminal arrest nor administrative detention, and which has no recognition in Israeli law or international law. We cannot accept this argument. The mechanism provided in the Law is a mechanism of administrative detention in every respect, which is carried out in accordance with an order of the Chief of Staff, who is an officer of the highest security authority. As we shall explain below, we are dealing with an administrative detention whose purpose is to protect state security by removing from the cycle of hostilities anyone who is a member of a terrorist organization or who is participating in the organization's operations against the State of Israel, in view of the threat that he represents to the security of the state and the lives of its inhabitants.

16.  It should be noted that the actual authority provided in the Law for the administrative detention of a "civilian" who is an "unlawful combatant" due to the threat that he represents to the security of the state is not contrary to the provisions of international humanitarian law. Thus art. 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which lists a variety of rights to which protected civilians are entitled, recognizes the possibility of a party to a dispute adopting "control and security measures" that are justified on security grounds. The wording of the aforesaid art. 27 is as follows:

'... the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.'

Regarding the types of control measures that are required for protecting state security, art. 41 of the Convention prohibits the adoption of control measures that are more severe than assigned residence or internment in accordance with the provisions of arts. 42-43 of the Convention. Art. 42 entrenches the rule that a "civilian" should not be interned unless this is "absolutely necessary" for the security of the detaining power. Art. 43 proceeds to obligate the detaining power to approve the detention by means of judicial or administrative review, and to hold periodic reviews of the continuing need for internment at least twice a year. Art. 78 of the Convention concerns the internment of protected civilians who are inhabitants of a territory that is held by an occupying power, and it states that it is possible to invoke various security measures against them for essential security reasons, including assigned residence and internment. Thus we see that the Fourth Geneva Convention allows the internment of protected "civilians" in administrative detention, when this is necessary for reasons concerning the essential security needs of the detaining power.

17.  In concluding these remarks we would point out that the appellants argued before us that the aforesaid provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention are not applicable in their particular case. According to them, arts. 41-43 of the Convention concern the detention of protected civilians who are present in the territory of a party to a dispute, whereas the appellants were taken into detention when they were in the Gaza Strip in the period prior to the implementation of the disengagement plan, when the status of the Gaza Strip was that of territory under belligerent occupation.  They argue that art. 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention - relating to administrative detention in occupied territory - is not applicable to their case either, in view of the circumstances that arose after the implementation of the disengagement plan and the departure of IDF forces from the Gaza Strip. In view of this, the appellants argued that no provision of international humanitarian law exists that allows them to be placed in administrative detention, and therefore they argued that their detention under the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law is contrary to the provisions of international law.

Our reply to these arguments is that the detention provisions set out in the Fourth Geneva Convention were intended to apply and realize the basic principle contained in the last part of art. 27 of the Convention, which was cited above. As we have said, this article provides that the parties to a dispute may adopt security measures against protected civilians insofar as this is required due to the belligerence. The principle underlying all the detention provisions in the Fourth Geneva Convention is that "civilians" may be detained for security reasons to the extent necessitated by the threat that they represent. According to the aforesaid Convention, the power of detention for security reasons exists, whether we are concerned with the inhabitants of an occupied territory or with foreigners who were apprehended in the territory of one of the states involved in the dispute. In the appellants' case, although Israeli military rule in the Gaza Strip has ended, the hostilities between the Hezbollah organization and the State of Israel have not ceased; therefore, detention of the appellants within the territory of the State of Israel for security reasons is not inconsistent with the detention provisions in the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The cause of detention under the Law - the requirement of an individual threat to security and the effect of the interpretation of the statutory definition of "unlawful combatant"

18.  One of the first principles of our legal system is that administrative detention is conditional upon the existence of a cause of detention that derives from the individual threat posed by the detainee to the security of the state. This was discussed by President Barak when he said:

'[For cause of detention to exist] the circumstances of the detention must be such that they arouse, with respect to [the prisoner] - to him personally and not to someone else - concern that threatens security, whether because he was apprehended in the combat area when he was actually fighting or carrying out acts of terrorism, or because there is a concern that he is involved in fighting or terrorism' (Marab v. IDF Commander in Judaea and Samaria [8], at p. 367).

The requirement of an individual threat for the purpose of placing a person in administrative detention is an essential part of the protection of the constitutional right to dignity and personal liberty. This court has held in the past that administrative detention is basically a preventative measure; administrative detention was not intended to punish a person for acts that have already been committed or to deter others from committing them; its purpose is to prevent the tangible risk presented by the acts of the prisoner to the security of the state. It is this risk that justifies the use of the unusual measure of administrative detention that violates human liberty (see and cf. Ajuri v. IDF Commander in West Bank [7], at pp. 370-372, and the references cited there).

19.  It will be noted that a personal threat to state security posed by the detainee is also a requirement under the principles of international humanitarian law. Thus, for example, in his interpretation of arts. 42 and 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Pictet emphasizes that the state should resort to the measure of detention only when it has serious and legitimate reasons to believe that the person concerned endangers its security. In his interpretation Pictet discusses membership in organizations whose goal is to harm the security of the state as a ground for deeming a person to be a threat, but he emphasizes the meta-principle that the threat is determined in accordance with the individual activity of that person. In Pictet's words:

'To justify recourse to such measures, the state must have good reason to think that the person concerned, by his activities, knowledge or qualifications, represents a real threat to its present or future security' (J.S. Pictet, Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1958), at pp. 258-259).

20. No one here disputes that the provisions of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law should be interpreted in accordance with the aforesaid principles, whereby administrative detention is conditional upon proving the existence of cause that establishes an individual threat. Indeed, an examination of the provisions of the Law in accordance with the aforesaid principles reveals that the Law does not allow a person to be detained arbitrarily, and that the authority to detain by virtue of the Law is conditional upon the existence of a cause of detention that is based on the individual threat represented by the prisoner: first, the definition of "unlawful combatant" in s. 2 of the Law requires that it be proven that the prisoner himself took part in or belonged to a force that is carrying out hostilities against the State of Israel, the significance of which we shall address below. Secondly, s. 3(a) of the Law expressly provides that the cause of detention under the Law arises only with regard to someone for whom there is reasonable basis to believe that "his release will harm state security." S. 5(c) of the Law goes on to provide that the District Court will set aside a detention order that was issued pursuant to the Law only when the release of the prisoner "will not harm state security" (or when there are special reasons that justify the release). To this we should add that according to the purpose of the Law, administrative detention is intended to prevent the "unlawful combatant" from returning to the cycle of hostilities, indicating that he was originally a part of that cycle.

The dispute between the parties before us in this context concerns the level of the individual threat that the state must prove for the purpose of administrative detention under the Law. This dispute arises due to the combination of two main provisions of the Law: one is the provision in s. 2 of the Law, a simple reading of which states that an "unlawful combatant" is not only someone who takes a direct or indirect part in hostile acts against the State of Israel, but also a person who is a "member of a force perpetrating hostile acts." The other is the probative presumption in s. 7 of the Law, whereby a person who is a member of a force that perpetrates hostile acts against the State of Israel shall be regarded as someone whose release will harm the security of the state unless the contrary is proved. On the basis of a combination of these two provisions of the Law, the state argued that it is sufficient to prove that a person is a member of a terrorist organization in order to prove his individual danger to the security of the state in such a manner that provides cause for detention under the Law. By contrast, the appellants' approach was that relying upon abstract "membership" in an organization that perpetrates hostile acts against the State of Israel as a basis for administrative detention under the Law renders meaningless the requirement of proving an individual threat, contrary to constitutional principles and international humanitarian law.

21. Resolution of the aforesaid dispute is largely affected by the interpretation of the definition of "unlawful combatant" in s. 2 of the Law. As we have said, the statutory definition of "unlawful combatant" contains two alternatives: the first, "a person who has participated either directly or indirectly in hostile acts against the State of Israel", and the second, a person who is "a member of a force perpetrating hostile acts against the State of Israel," when the person concerned does not satisfy the conditions granting prisoner of war status under international humanitarian law. These two alternatives should be interpreted with reference to the security purpose of the Law and in accordance with the constitutional principles and international humanitarian law that we discussed above, which require proof of an individual threat as grounds for administrative detention.

With respect to the interpretation of the first alternative concerning "a person who has participated either directly or indirectly in hostile acts against the State of Israel " - according to the legislative purpose and the principles that we have discussed, the obvious conclusion is that in order to intern a person it is not sufficient that he made a remote, negligible or marginal contribution to the hostilities against the State of Israel. In order to prove that a person is an "unlawful combatant", the state must prove that he contributed to the perpetration of hostile acts against the state, either directly or indirectly, in a manner that is likely to indicate his personal dangerousness. Naturally it is not possible to define such a contribution precisely and exhaustively, and the matter must be examined according to the circumstances of each case on its merits.

With respect to the second alternative  - a person who is "a member of a force carrying out hostilities against the State of Israel" - here too an interpretation that is consistent with the purpose of the Law and the constitutional principles and international humanitarian law discussed above is required: on the one hand it is insufficient to simply show some kind of tenuous connection with a terrorist organization in order to include the person within the cycle of hostilities in the broad meaning of this concept. On the other hand, in order to establish cause for the internment of a person who is a member of an active terrorist organization whose self-declared goal is to fight incessantly against the State of Israel, it is not necessary for that person to take a direct or indirect part in the hostilities themselves, and it is possible that his connection and contribution to the organization will be expressed in other ways that suffice to include him in the cycle of hostilities in its broad sense, such that his detention will be justified under the Law.

Thus we see that for the purpose of internment under the Law, the state must furnish administrative proof that the prisoner is an "unlawful combatant" with the meaning that we discussed, i.e. that the prisoner took a direct or indirect part that involved a contribution to the fighting  - a part that was neither negligible nor marginal in hostile acts against the State of Israel - or that the prisoner belonged to an organization that perpetrates hostile acts, in which case we should consider the prisoner's connection and the nature of his contribution to the cycle of hostilities of the organization in the broad sense of this concept.

It should be noted that proving the conditions of the definition of an "unlawful combatant" in the aforesaid sense naturally includes proof of an individual threat that derives from the type of involvement in the organization. It should also be noted that only after the state has proved that the prisoner fulfils the conditions of the statutory definition of "unlawful combatant" can it have recourse to the probative presumption set out in s. 7 of the Law, according to which the release of the prisoner will harm state security as long as the contrary has not been proved. It is therefore clear that s. 7 of the Law does not negate the obligation of the state to prove the threat represented by the prisoner, which derives from the type of involvement in the relevant organization, as required in order to prove him to be an "unlawful combatant" under s. 2 of the Law. In view of this, the inevitable conclusion is that the argument that the Law does not include a requirement of an individual threat goes too far and should be rejected.

Proving someone to be an "unlawful combatant" under the Law - the need for clear and convincing administrative evidence

22.  Above, we discussed the interpretation of the definition of "unlawful combatant". According to the aforesaid interpretation, the state is required to prove that the prisoner took a substantial, direct or indirect part in hostile acts against the State of Israel, or that he belonged to an organization that perpetrates hostile acts:  all this, taking into consideration his connection and the extent of his contribution to the organization's cycle of hostilities. In these circumstances internment of a person may be necessary in order to remove him from the cycle of hostilities that prejudices the security of the citizens and residents of the State of Israel. The question that arises here is this: what evidence is required in order to convince the court that the prisoner satisfies the conditions of the definition of an "unlawful combatant" with the aforesaid meaning?

This court has held in the past that since administrative detention is an unusual and extreme measure, and in view of its violation of the constitutional right to personal liberty, clear and convincing evidence is required in order to prove a security threat that establishes a cause for administrative detention (see Ajuri v. IDF Commander in West Bank [7], at p. 372, where this was the ruling with regard to the measure of assigned residence; also cf. per Justice A. Procaccia in ADA 8607/04 Fahima v. State of Israel [14], at p. 264; HCJ 554/81 Beransa v. Central Commander [15]). It would appear that the provisions of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law should be interpreted similarly. Bearing in mind the importance of the right to personal liberty and in view of the security purpose of the said Law, the provisions of ss. 2 and 3 of the Law should be interpreted as obligating the state to prove, with clear and convincing administrative evidence, that even if the prisoner did not take a substantial, direct or indirect part in hostile acts against the State of Israel, he belonged to a terrorist organization and made a significant contribution to the cycle of hostilities in its broad sense, such that his administrative detention is justified in order to prevent his return to the aforesaid cycle of hostilities.

The significance of the requirement that there be clear and convincing evidence is that importance should be attached to the quantity and quality of the evidence against the prisoner and the degree to which the relevant intelligence information against him is current; this is necessary both to prove that the prisoner is an "unlawful combatant" under s. 2 of the Law and also for the purpose of the judicial review of the need to continue the detention, to which we shall return below. Indeed, the purpose of administrative detention is to prevent anticipated future threats to the security of the state; naturally we can learn of these threats from tangible evidence concerning the prisoner's acts in the past (see per President M. Shamgar in Beransa v. Central Commander [15], at pp. 249-250; HCJ 11026/05 A v. IDF Commander [16], at para. 5). Nevertheless, for the purposes of long-term internment under the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law, satisfactory administrative evidence is required, and a single piece of evidence about an isolated act carried out in the distant past is insufficient.

23. It follows that for the purposes of internment under the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law, the state is required to provide clear and convincing evidence that even if the prisoner did not take a substantial direct or indirect part in hostile acts against the State of Israel, he belonged to a terrorist organization and contributed to the cycle of hostilities in its broad sense. It should be noted that this requirement is not always easy to prove, for to prove that someone is a member of a terrorist organization is not like proving that someone is a member of a regular army, due to the manner in which terrorist organizations work and how people join their ranks. In Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel [4], the court held that unlike lawful combatants, unlawful combatants do not as a rule bear any clear and unambiguous signs that they belong to a terrorist organization (see ibid. [4], at para. 24). Therefore, the task of proving that a person belongs to an organization as aforesaid is not always an easy one. Nevertheless, the state is required to furnish sufficient administrative evidence to prove the nature of the prisoner's connection to the terrorist organization, and the degree or nature of his contribution to the broad cycle of combat or hostile acts carried out by the organization.

It should also be noted that in its pleadings before us, the state contended that the power of internment prescribed in the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law was intended to apply to members of terrorist organizations in a situation of ongoing belligerence in territory that is not subject to the full control of the State of Israel, where in the course of the hostilities a relatively large number of unlawful combatants may fall into the hands of the security forces and it is necessary to prevent them returning to the cycle of hostilities against Israel. The special circumstances that exist in situations of this kind require a different course of action from that which is possible within the territory of the state or in an area subject to belligerent occupation. In any case, it must be assumed that the said reality may pose additional difficulties in assembling evidence as to whether those persons detained by the state on the battle-field belong to a terrorist organization and how great a threat they represent.

The probative presumptions in ss. 7 and 8 of the Law

24. As we have said, s. 7 of the Law establishes a presumption whereby a person who satisfies the conditions of the definition of "unlawful combatant" shall be regarded as someone whose release will harm the security of the state as long as the hostile acts against the State of Israel have not ceased. This is a rebuttable presumption, and the burden of rebutting it rests on the prisoner. We will emphasize what we said above, that the presumption in the said s. 7 is likely to be relevant only after the state has proved that the prisoner satisfies the conditions of the definition of "unlawful combatant". In such circumstances it is presumed that the release of the prisoner will harm state security as required by s. 3(a) of the Law.

As noted above, one of the appellants' main claims in this court was that the aforesaid presumption obviates the need to prove an individual threat from the prisoner, and that this is inconsistent with constitutional principles and international humanitarian law. The respondent countered this argument but went on to declare before us that as a rule, the state strives to present a broad and detailed evidentiary basis with regard to the threat presented by prisoners, and it has done so to date in relation to all prisoners under the Law, including in the appellants' case. The meaning of this assertion is that in practice, the state refrains from relying on the probative presumption in s. 7 of the Law and it proves the individual threat presented by prisoners on an individual basis, without resorting to the said presumption. It should be noted that this practice of the state is consistent with our finding that proving fulfillment of the conditions of the definition of "unlawful combatant" in s. 2 of the Law involves proving the individual threat that arises from the type of involvement in an organization as explained above.

In any case, since the state has refrained until now from invoking the presumption in s. 7 of the Law, the questions of the extent to which the said presumption reduces the requirement of proving the individual threat for the purpose of internment under the Law, and whether this is an excessive violation of the constitutional right to liberty and of the principles of international humanitarian law, do not arise. We can therefore leave these questions undecided, for as long as the state produces prima facie evidence of the individual threat presented by the prisoner and does not rely on the presumption under discussion, the question of the effect of the presumption on proving an individual threat remains theoretical. It will be noted that should the state choose to invoke the presumption in s. 7 of the Law in the future rather than proving the threat to the required degree, it will be possible to bring the aforesaid questions before the court, since it will be necessary to resolve them concretely rather than theoretically (see CrimA 3660/03 Abeid v. State of Israel [17]; HCJ 1853/02 Navi v. Minister of Energy and National Infrastructures [18]; HCJ 6055/95 Tzemach v. Minister of Defence [19], at p. 250 {641}; HCJ 4827/05 Man, Nature and Law - Israel Environmental Protection Society v. Minister of the Interior [20], at para. 10; CA 7175/98 National Insurance Institute v. Bar Finance Ltd (in liquidation) [21]).

25. Regarding the probative presumption in s. 8 of the Law, this section states as follows:

'Determination regarding hostile acts

8. A determination of the Minister of Defence, by a certificate under his hand, that a particular force is perpetrating hostile acts against the State of Israel or that hostile acts of such force against the State of Israel have ceased or have not yet ceased, shall serve as proof in any legal proceedings, unless proved otherwise.

The appellants argued before us that the said probative presumption transfers the burden of proof to the prisoner in respect of a matter which he will never be able to refute, since it is subject to the discretion of the Minister of Defence. The state countered that in all the proceedings pursuant to the Law it has refrained from relying solely on the determination of the Minister of Defence, and it has presented the court and counsel for the prisoners with an updated and detailed opinion concerning the relevant organization to which the prisoner belongs. This was done in the case of the appellants too, who allegedly belong to the Hezbollah organization. In view of this, we are not required to decide on the fundamental questions raised by the appellants regarding the said s. 8.  In any case, it should be stated that in the situation prevailing in our region, in which the organizations that operate against the security of the State of Israel are well known to the military and security services, it should not be assumed that it is difficult to prove the existence and nature of the activity of hostile forces by means of a specific and updated opinion, in order to provide support for the determination of the Minister of Defence, as stated in s. 8 of the Law.

The Constitutional Examination

26.  Up to this point we have dealt with the interpretation of the statutory definition of "unlawful combatant" and the conditions required for proving the existence of a cause for internment under the Law. This interpretation takes into account the language and purpose of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law, and it is compatible with the presumption of constitutionality and with the principles of international humanitarian law to which the purpose clause of the Law expressly refers.

Now that we have considered the scope of the Law's application and the nature of the power of internment by virtue thereof, we will proceed to the arguments of the parties concerning the constitutionality of the arrangements prescribed in its framework. These arguments were raised in the District Court and in this court in the course of the hearing on the appellants' internment, in the framework of an indirect attack on the said Law.

Violation of the constitutional right to personal liberty

27.  S. 5 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty provides as follows:

'Personal liberty

5.  There shall be no deprivation or restriction of the liberty of a person by imprisonment, arrest, extradition or otherwise.

There is no dispute between the parties before us that the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law violates the constitutional right to personal liberty entrenched in the aforesaid s. 5. This is a significant and serious violation, in that the Law allows the use of the extreme measure of administrative detention, which involves depriving a person of his personal liberty. It should be clarified that the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law was admittedly intended to apply to a foreign entity belonging to a terrorist organization that operates against the state security (see para. 11 above). In Israel, however, the internment of unlawful combatants is carried out by the government authorities, who are bound in every case to respect the rights anchored in the Basic Law (see ss. 1 and 11 of the Basic Law). Accordingly, the violation inherent in the arrangements of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law should be examined in keeping with the criteria in the Basic Law.

Examining the violation of the constitutional right from the perspective of the limitation clause

28.  No one disputes that the right to personal liberty is a constitutional right with a central role in our legal system, lying at the heart of the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state (see Marab v. IDF Commander in Judaea and Samaria [8], at para. 20). It has been held in our case law that "personal liberty is a constitutional right of the first degree, and from a practical viewpoint it is also a condition for realizing other basic rights" (Tzemach v. Minister of Defence [16], at p. 251; see also HCJ 5319/97 Kogen v. Chief Military Prosecutor [22], at p. 81 {513}; CrimA 4596/05 Rosenstein v. State of Israel [23], at para. 53; CrimA 4424/98 Silgado v. State of Israel [24], at pp. 539-540). Nevertheless, like all protected human rights the right to personal liberty is not absolute, and a violation of the right is sometimes necessary in order to protect essential public interests. The balancing formula in this context appears in the limitation clause in s. 8 of the Basic Law, which states:

'Violation of Rights

8. There shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required, or according to a law as stated by virtue of explicit authorization therein. '

The question confronting us is whether the violation of the right to personal liberty engendered by the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law complies with the conditions of the limitation clause. The arguments of the parties before us focused on the requirements of proper purpose and proportionality, and these will be the focus of our deliberations as well.

29. At the outset, and before we examine the provisions of the Law from the perspective of the limitation clause, we should mention that the court will not hasten to intervene and set aside a statutory provision enacted by the legislature. The court is bound to uphold the law as a manifestation of the will of the people (HCJ 1661/05 Gaza Coast Regional Council v. Knesset [25], at pp. 552-553; HCJ 4769/95 Menahem v. Minister of Transport [26], at pp. 263-264; HCJ 3434/96 Hoffnung v. Knesset Speaker [27], at pp. 66-67). Thus the principle of the separation of powers finds expression: the legislative authority determines the measures that should be adopted in order to achieve public goals, whereas the judiciary examines whether these measures violate basic rights in contravention of the conditions set for this purpose in the Basic Law. It is the legislature that determines national policy and formulates it in statute, whereas the court scrutinizes the constitutionality of the legislation to reveal the extent to which it violates constitutional human rights (see per President A. Barak in Adalah Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel v. Ministry of the Interior [10], at para. 78). It has therefore been held in the case law of this court that when examining the legislation of the Knesset from the perspective of the limitation clause, the court will act "with judicial restraint, caution and moderation" (Menahem v. Minister of Transport [26], at p. 263). The court will not refrain from constitutional scrutiny of legislation, but it will act with caution and exercise its constitutional scrutiny in order to protect human rights within the constraints of the limitation clause, while refraining from reformulating the policy that the legislature saw fit to adopt. Thus the delicate balance between majority rule and the principle of the separation of powers on the one hand, and the protection of the basic values of the legal system and human rights on the other, will be preserved.

The requirement of a proper purpose

30. According to the limitation clause, a statute that violates a constitutional right must have a proper purpose. It has been held in our case law that a legislative purpose is proper if it is designed to protect human rights, including by determining a reasonable and fair balance between the rights of individuals with conflicting interests, or if it serves an essential public purpose, an urgent social need or an important social concern whose purpose is to provide an infrastructure for coexistence and a social framework that seeks to protect and promote human rights (see ibid. [26], at p. 264; HCJ 6893/05 Levy v. Government of Israel [28], at pp. 889-890; HCJ 5016/96 Horev v. Minister of Transport [29], at pp. 52-53, {206}). It has also been held that not every purpose justifies a violation of constitutional basic rights, and that the essence of the violated right and the magnitude of the violation are likely to have ramifications for the purpose that is required to justify the violation.

In our remarks above we explained that the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law, according to its wording and its legislative history, was intended to prevent persons who threaten the security of the state due to their activity or their membership in terrorist organizations that carry out hostile acts against the State of Israel from returning to the cycle of hostilities (see para. 6 above). This legislative purpose is a proper one. Protecting state security is an urgent and even essential public need in the harsh reality of unremitting, murderous terrorism that harms innocent people indiscriminately. It is difficult to exaggerate the security importance of preventing members of terrorist organizations from returning to the cycle of hostilities against the State of Israel in a period of relentless terrorist activity that threatens the lives of the citizens and residents of the State of Israel. In view of this, the purpose of the Law under discussion may well justify a significant and even serious violation of human rights, including the right to personal liberty. Thus was discussed by President A. Barak when he said that -

'There is no alternative - in a freedom and security seeking democracy - to striking a balance between liberty and dignity on the one hand and security on the other. Human rights should not become a tool for depriving the public and the state of security. A balance - a delicate and difficult balance - is required between the liberty and dignity of the individual and state and public security' (A v. Minister of Defence [1], at p.741).

 (See also Ajuri v. IDF Commander in West Bank [7], at p. 383; per Justice D. Dorner in HCJ 5627/02 Saif v. Government Press Office [30],  at pp. 76-77, {para.6 at pp. 197-198}; EA 2/84 Neiman v. Chairman of Central Elections Committee for Tenth Knesset [31], at p. 310 {160}).

The purpose of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law is therefore a proper one. But this is not enough. Within the framework of constitutional scrutiny, we are required to proceed to examine whether the violation of the right to personal liberty does not exceed what is necessary for realizing the purpose of the Law. We shall now examine this question.

The requirement that the measure violating a human right is not excessive

31. The main issue that arises with respect to the constitutionality of the Law concerns the proportionality of the arrangements it prescribes. As a rule, it is customary to identify three subtests that constitute fundamental criteria for determining the proportionality of a statutory act that violates a constitutional human right: the first is the rational connection test, whereby the legislative measure violating the constitutional right and the purpose that the Law is intended to realize must be compatible; the second is the least harmful measure test, which requires that the legislation violate the constitutional right to the smallest degree possible in order to achieve the purpose of the Law; and the third is the test of proportionality in the narrow sense, according to which the violation of the constitutional right must be commensurate with the social benefit it bestows (see Menahem v. Minister of Transport [26], at p. 279; Adalah Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel v. Ministry of the Interior [10], at paras. 65-75; Beit Sourik Village Council v. Government of Israel [6], at pp. 839-840).

It has been held in the case law of this court that the test of proportionality, with its three subtests, is not a precise test since by its very nature it involves assessment and evaluation. The subtests sometimes overlap and each of them allows the legislature a margin of discretion. There may be circumstances in which the choice of an alternative measure that violates the constitutional right slightly less results in a significant reduction in the realization of the purpose or the benefit derived from it; it would not be right therefore to obligate the legislature to adopt the aforesaid measure. Consequently this court has accorded recognition to "constitutional room for maneuver" which is also called the "zone of proportionality". The bounds of the constitutional room for maneuver are determined by the court in each case on its merits and according to its circumstances, bearing in mind the nature of the right that is being violated and the extent of the violation as opposed to the nature and substance of the competing rights or interests. This court will not substitute its own discretion for the criteria chosen by the legislature and will refrain from intervention as long as the measure chosen by the legislature falls within the zone of proportionality. The court will only intervene when the chosen measure significantly departs from the bounds of the constitutional room for maneuver and is clearly disproportionate (see CA 6821/93 United Mizrahi Bank Ltd v. Migdal Cooperative Village [32], at p. 438; HCJ 450/97 Tenufa Manpower and Maintenance Services Ltd. v. Minister of Labour and Social Affairs [33]; AAA 4436/02 Tishim Kadurim Restaurant, Members' Club v. Haifa Municipality [34], at p. 815; Gaza Coast Regional Council v. Knesset [25], at pp. 550-551).

In the circumstances of the case before us, the violation of the constitutional right to personal liberty is significant and even severe in its extent. Nevertheless, as we said above, the legislative purpose of removing "unlawful combatants" from the cycle of hostilities in order to protect state security is essential in view of the reality of murderous terrorism that threatens the lives of the residents and citizens of the State of Israel. In these circumstances, I think that the existence of relatively wide room for legislative maneuver should be recognized, to allow the selection of the suitable measure for realizing the purpose of the Law.

The First Subtest: A Rational Connection Between the Measure and the Purpose

32.  The measure chosen by the legislature in order to realize the purpose of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law is administrative detention. As we explained in para. 21 above, for the purpose of internment under the Law the state must provide clear and convincing proof that the prisoner is an "unlawful combatant" within the meaning that we discussed. The state is therefore required to prove the personal threat presented by the prisoner, deriving from his particular form of involvement in the organization. Administrative detention constitutes a suitable means of averting the security threat presented by the prisoner, in that it prevents the "unlawful combatant" from returning to the cycle of hostilities against the State of Israel and thereby serves the purpose of the Law. Therefore the first subtest of proportionality - the rational connection test - is satisfied.

The main question concerning the proportionality of the Law under discussion concerns the second subtest, i.e. the question of whether there exist alternative measures that involve a lesser violation of the constitutional right. In examining this question, we should first consider the appellants' argument that there are more proportionate measures for realizing the purpose of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law. Next we should consider the specific arrangements prescribed in the Law and examine whether they exceed the zone of proportionality. Finally we should examine the Law in its entirety and examine whether the combination of arrangements that were prescribed in the Law fulfils the test of proportionality in the narrow sense, i.e. whether the violation of the right to personal liberty is reasonably commensurate with the public benefit that arises from it in realizing the legislative purpose.

The argument that there are alternative measures to detention under the Law

33.  The appellants' main argument concerning proportionality was that alternative measures to administrative detention exist by virtue of the Law, involving a lesser violation of the right to liberty. In this context, the appellants raised two main arguments: first, it was argued that for the purpose of realizing the legislative purpose it is not necessary to employ the measure of administrative detention, and the appellants ought to be recognized as prisoners of war; alternatively, recourse should be had to the measure of trying the appellants on criminal charges. Secondly, it was argued that even if administrative detention is necessary in the appellants' case, this should be carried out under the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law, 5739-1979, for according to their argument, the violation that it involves is more proportionate than that of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law.

The first argument - that the appellants should be declared prisoners of war - must be rejected. In HCJ 2967/00 Arad v. Knesset [35], which considered the case of Lebanese prisoners, a similar argument to the one raised in the present appellants' case was rejected:

'We agree with the position of Mr Nitzan that the Lebanese prisoners should not be regarded as prisoners of war. It is sufficient that they do not satisfy the provisions of art. 4(2)(d) of the Third Geneva Convention, which provides that one of the conditions that must be satisfied in order to comply with the definition of "prisoners of war" is "that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." The organizations to which the Lebanese prisoners belonged are terrorist organizations, which operate contrary to the laws and customs of war. Thus, for example, these organizations deliberately attack civilians and shoot from the midst of the civilian population, which they use as a shield. All of these are operations that are contrary to international law. Indeed, Israel's consistent position over the years was not to regard the various organizations such as Hezbollah as organizations to which the Third Geneva Convention applies. We have found no reason to intervene in this position' (ibid. [35], at p. 191).

 (See also CrimApp 8780/06 Sarur v. State of Israel [36]; HCJ 403/81 Jabar v. Military Commander [37]; and also HCJ 102/82 Tzemel v. Minister of Defence [38], at pp. 370-371).

Similar to what was said in Arad v. Knesset [35], in the circumstances of the case before us, too, the appellants should not be accorded prisoner of war status, since they do not satisfy the conditions of art. 4 of the Third Geneva Convention, and primarily, the condition concerning the observance of the laws of war.

The appellants' argument that a more proportionate measure would be to try the prisoners on criminal charges should also be rejected, in view of the fact that trying a person on criminal charges is different in essence and purpose from the measure of administrative detention. Putting a person on trial is intended to punish him for acts committed in the past, and it is dependent upon the existence of evidence that can be brought before a court in order to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Administrative detention, on the other hand, was not intended to punish but to prevent activity that is prohibited by law and endangers the security of the state. The quality of evidence that is required for administrative detention is different from that required for a criminal trial. Moreover, as a rule recourse to the extreme measure of administrative detention is justified in circumstances where other measures, including the conduct of a criminal trial, are impossible, due to the absence of sufficient admissible evidence or the impossibility of revealing privileged sources, or when a criminal trial does not provide a satisfactory solution to averting the threat posed to the security of the state in circumstances in which, after serving his sentence, the person is likely to revert to being a security risk (see, inter alia, ADA 4794/05 Ufan v. Minister of Defence [39]; ADA 7/94 Ben-Yosef v. State of Israel [40]; ADA 8788/03 Federman v. Minister of Defence [41], at pp. 185-189; Fahima v. State of Israel [14], at pp. 263-264). In view of all the above, it cannot be said that a criminal trial constitutes an alternative measure for realizing the purpose of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law.

34.  As we have said, the appellants' alternative claim before us was that even if it is necessary to place them in administrative detention, this should be done pursuant to the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law. According to this argument, the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law violates the right to personal liberty to a lesser degree than the provisions of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law. Thus, for example, it is argued that the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law requires an individual threat as a cause for detention, without introducing presumptions that transfer the burden of proof to the prisoner, as provided in the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law. Moreover, the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law requires a judicial review to be conducted within forty-eight hours of the time of detention, and a periodic review every three months, whereas the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law allows a prisoner to be brought before a judge as much as fourteen days after the time he is detained, and it requires a periodic review only once every half year; under the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law,  the power of detention is conditional upon the existence of a state of emergency in the State of Israel, whereas internment under the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law does not set such a condition and it is even unlimited in time, apart from the stipulation that the internment will end by the time that the hostilities against the State of Israel have ceased. To this it should be added that detention under the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law is effected by an order of the Minister of Defence, whereas internment under the Internment of Unlawful Combatants is effected by an order of the Chief of Staff, who is authorised to delegate his authority to an officer with the rank of major-general. Taking into consideration all the above, the appellants' argument before us is that detention under the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law constitutes a more proportionate alternative than administrative detention under the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law.

35.  Prima facie the appellants are correct in their argument that in certain respects the arrangements prescribed in the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law violate the right to personal liberty to a lesser degree than the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law. However, we accept the state's argument in this context that the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law is intended for a different purpose than that of the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law. In view of the different purposes, the two laws contain different arrangements, such that the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law does not constitute an alternative measure for achieving the purpose of the Law under discussion in this case. Let us clarify our position.

The Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law applies in a time of emergency and in general, its purpose is to prevent threats to state security arising from internal entities (i.e., citizens and residents of the state). Accordingly, the Law prescribes the power of administrative detention that is usually invoked with regard to isolated individuals who threaten state security and whose detention is intended to last for relatively short periods of time, apart from exceptional cases. On the other hand, as we clarified in para. 11 above, the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law is intended to apply to foreign entities who operate within the framework of terrorist organizations against the security of the state. The Law was intended to apply at a time of organized and persistent hostile acts against Israel on the part of terrorist organizations. The purpose of the Law is to prevent persons who belong to these organizations or who take part in hostile acts under their banner from returning to the cycle of hostilities, as long as the hostilities against the State of Israel continue. In order to achieve the aforesaid purpose, the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law contains arrangements that are different from those in the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law (we will discuss the question of the proportionality of these arrangements below). Moreover, according to the state, the power of detention prescribed in the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law was intended to apply to members of terrorist organizations in a persistent state of war in a territory that is not a part of Israel, where a relatively large number of enemy combatants is likely to fall into the hands of the military forces during the fighting. The argument is that these special circumstances justify recourse to measures that are different from those usually employed.

Thus we see that even though the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law and the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law prescribe a power of administrative detention whose purpose is to prevent a threat to state security, the specific purposes of the aforesaid laws are different and therefore the one cannot constitute an alternative measure for achieving the purpose of the other. In the words of the trial court: "We are dealing with a horizontal plane on which there are two acts of legislation, one next to the other. Each of the two was intended for a different purpose and therefore, in circumstances such as our case, they are not alternatives to one another" (p. 53 of the decision of the District Court of 19 July 2006). It should be clarified that in appropriate circumstances, the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law could well be used to detain foreigners who are not residents or citizens of the State of Israel. Despite this, the premise is that the specific purposes of the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law and the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law are different, and therefore it cannot be determined in a sweeping manner that detention under the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law constitutes a more appropriate and proportionate alternative to detention under the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law.

36.  In concluding these remarks it will be mentioned that the appellants, who are inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, were first detained in the years 2002-2003, when the Gaza Strip was subject to belligerent occupation. At that time, the administrative detention of the appellants was carried out under the security legislation that was in force in the Gaza Strip. A change occurred in September 2005, when Israeli military rule in the Gaza Strip ended and the territory ceased to be subject to belligerent occupation (see para. 11 above). One of the ancillary consequences of the end of the Israeli military rule in the Gaza Strip was the repeal of the security legislation that was in force there. Consequently, the Chief of Staff issued detention orders for the appellants under the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law.

In view of the nullification of the security legislation in the Gaza Strip, no question arises in relation to inhabitants of that region as to whether administrative detention by virtue of security legislation may constitute a suitable and more proportionate measure than internment under the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law. Nonetheless, I think it noteworthy that the aforesaid question may arise with regard to inhabitants of the territories that are under the belligerent occupation of the State of Israel (Judaea and Samaria). As emerges from the abovesaid in para. 11, prima facie I tend to the opinion that both under the international humanitarian law that governs the matter (art. 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention) and according to the test of proportionality, administrative detention of inhabitants of Judaea and Samaria should be carried out by virtue of the current security legislation that is in force in the territories, and not by virtue of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law in Israel. This issue does not, however, arise in the circumstances of the case before us and therefore I think it right to leave it for future consideration.

Proportionality of the specific arrangements prescribed in the Law

37.  In view of all of the reasons elucidated above, we have reached the conclusion that the measures identified by the appellants in their pleadings cannot constitute alternative measures to administrative detention by virtue of the Law under discussion. The appellants further argued that the specific arrangements prescribed in the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law violate the right to personal liberty excessively, and more proportionate arrangements that violate personal liberty to a lesser degree could have been set. Let us therefore proceed to examine this argument with regard to the specific arrangements prescribed in the Law.

(1)        Conferring the power of detention on military personnel

38.       S. 3(a) of the Law, cited in para. 15 above, provides that an internment order by virtue of the Law will be issued by the Chief of Staff "under his hand" and will include the grounds for the internment "without prejudicing state security requirement." S. 11 of the Law goes on to provide that "the Chief of Staff may delegate his powers under this Law to any officer of the rank of major-general that he may determine." According to the appellants, conferring the power of detention by virtue of the Law on the Chief of Staff, who may delegate it to an officer of the rank of major-general, is an excessive violation of the prisoners' right to personal liberty. In this context, the appellants emphasized that the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law confers the power of administrative detention on the Minister of Defence only.

In the circumstances of the case, we have come to the conclusion that the state is correct in its argument that conferring the power of detention on the Chief of Staff or an officer of the rank of major-general falls within the zone of proportionality and we should not intervene. First, as we said above, the specific purposes of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law and the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law are different, and there is therefore a difference in the arrangements prescribed in the two Laws. Since the Law under consideration before us was intended to apply, inter alia, in a situation of combat and prolonged military activity against terrorist organizations in a territory that is not subject to the total control of the State of Israel, there is logic in establishing an arrangement that confers the power of internment on military personnel of the highest rank. Secondly, it should be made clear that the provisions of international law do not preclude the power of detention of the military authority responsible for the security of a territory in which there are protected civilians. This may support the conclusion that conferring the power of detention on the Chief of Staff or an officer of the rank of major-general does not, in itself, violate the right to personal liberty disproportionately.

(2)        The prisoner's right to a hearing after an internment order is issued

39.  Ss. 3(b) and 3(c) of the Law provide as follows:

Internment of unlawful combatant

3.   (a) ...

(b) An internment order may be granted in the absence of the person held by the state authorities.

 (c) An internment order shall be brought to the attention of the prisoner at the earliest possible date, and he shall be given an opportunity to put his submissions in respect of the order before an officer of at least the rank of lieutenant-colonel to be appointed by the Chief of General Staff; the submissions of the prisoner shall be recorded by the officer and shall be brought before the Chief of General Staff; if the Chief of General Staff finds, after reviewing the submissions of the prisoner, that the conditions prescribed in subsection (a) have not been fulfilled, he shall quash the internment order.

According to s. 3(b) above, an internment order may be granted by the Chief of Staff (or a major-general appointed by him) without the prisoner being present. S. 3(c) of the Law goes on to provide that the order shall be brought to the attention of the prisoner "at the earliest possible date" and that he shall be given a hearing before an army officer of at least the rank of lieutenant-colonel, in order to allow him to put his submissions; the prisoner's submissions shall be recorded by the officer and brought before the Chief of Staff (or the major-general acting for him). According to the Law, if after reviewing the prisoner's arguments the Chief of Staff (or the major-general) is persuaded that the conditions for detention under the Law are not fulfilled, the internment order shall be quashed.

The appellants' argument in this context was that this arrangement violates the right to personal liberty excessively in view of the fact that the prisoner may put his submissions only after the event, i.e., after the internment order has been issued, and only before an officer of the rank of lieutenant-colonel, who will pass the submissions on to the Chief of Staff (or a major-general), in order that they reconsider their position. According to the appellants, it is the person who issues the order - the Chief of Staff or the major-general - who should hear the prisoner's arguments, even before the order is issued. These arguments should be rejected, for several reasons: first, it is established case law that the person who makes the decision does not need to conduct the hearing personally, and that it is also permissible to conduct the hearing before someone who has been appointed for this purpose by the person making the decision, provided that the person making the decision - in our case the Chief of Staff or the major-general acting on his behalf - will have before him all of the arguments and facts that were raised at the hearing (see HCJ 5445/93 Ramla Municipality v. Minister of the Interior [42], at p. 403; HCJ 2159/97 Ashkelon Coast Regional Council v. Minister of the Interior [43], at pp. 81-82). Secondly, from a practical viewpoint, establishing a duty to conduct hearings in advance, in the personal presence of the Chief of Staff or the major-general in times of combat and in circumstances in which there are liable to be many detentions in the combat zone as well, may present  significant logistical problems. Moreover, conducting a hearing in the manner proposed by the appellants is contrary to the purpose of the Law, which is to allow the immediate removal of the "unlawful combatants" from the cycle of hostilities in an effective manner. It should be emphasized that the hearing under s. 3(c) of the Law is a preliminary process whose main purpose is to prevent mistakes of identity. As will be explained below, in addition to the preliminary hearing, the Law requires that a judicial review take place before a District Court judge no later than fourteen days from the date of issue of the internment order, thereby lessening the violation claimed by the appellants. In view of all of the above, it cannot be said that the arrangement prescribed in the Law with respect to the hearing falls outside the zone of proportionality.

 (3)      Judicial review of internmentunder the Law

40.  S. 5 of the Law, entitled "Judicial Review", prescribes the following arrangement in subsecs. (a) - (d):

5.  (a) A prisoner shall be brought before a judge of the District Court no later than fourteen days after the date of granting the internment order; where the judge of the District Court finds that the conditions prescribed in s. 3(a) have not been fulfilled he shall quash the internment order.

(b) Where the prisoner is not brought before the District Court and where the hearing has not commenced before it within fourteen days of the date of granting the internment order, the prisoner shall be released unless there exists another ground for his detention under provisions of any law.

            (c)  Once every six months from the date of issue of an order under s. 3(a) the prisoner shall be brought before a judge of the District Court; where the Court finds that his release will not harm State security or that there are special grounds justifying his release, it shall quash the internment order.

(d) A decision of the District Court under this section is subject to appeal within thirty days to the Supreme Court, a single judge of which shall hear the appeal with; the Supreme Court shall have all the powers vested in the District Court under this Law.

The appellants argued before us that the judicial review process prescribed in s. 5 violates the right to personal liberty excessively, for two main reasons: first, under s. 5(a) of the Law, the prisoner should be brought before a District Court judge no later than fourteen days from the date of his detention. According to the appellants, this is a long period of time that constitutes an excessive violation of the right to personal liberty and of the prisoner's right of access to the courts. In this context the appellants argued that in view of the constitutional status of the right to personal liberty and in accordance with the norms applicable in international law, the legislature should have determined that the prisoner be brought to a judicial review "without delay." Secondly, it was argued that the period of time set in s. 5(c) of the Law for conducting periodic judicial review of the internment - every six months - is too long as well as disproportionate. By way of comparison, the appellants pointed out that the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law prescribes in this regard a period of time that is shorter by half - only three months. In reply, the state argued that in view of the purpose of the Law, the periods of time set in s. 5 are proportionate and they are consistent with the provisions of international law.

41. S. 5 of the Law is based on the premise that judicial review constitutes an integral part of the administrative detention process. In this context it has been held in the past that -

'Judicial intervention in the matter of detention orders is essential. Judicial intervention is a safeguard against arbitrariness; it is required by the principle of the rule of law…. It ensures that the delicate balance between the liberty of the individual and the security of the public - a balance that lies at the heart of the laws of detention - will be maintained' (per President A. Barak in Marab v. IDF Commander in Judaea and Samaria [8], at page 368).

The main thrust of the dispute regarding the constitutionality of s. 5 of the Law concerns the proportionality of the periods of time specified therein.

With respect to the periods of time between the internment of the prisoner and the initial judicial review of the internment order, it has been held in the case law of this court that in view of the status of the right to personal liberty and in order to prevent mistakes of fact and of discretion whose price is likely to be a person's loss of liberty without just cause, the administrative prisoner should be brought before a judge "as soon as possible" in the circumstances (per President M. Shamgar in HCJ 253/88 Sajadia v. Minister of Defence [44], at pp. 819-820). It should be noted that this case law is consistent with the arrangements prevailing in international law. International law does not specify the number of days during which it is permitted to detain a person without judicial intervention; rather, it lays down a general principle that can be applied in accordance with the circumstances of each case on its merits. According to the aforesaid general principle, the decision on internment should be brought before a judge or another person with judicial authority "promptly" (see art. 9(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, which is regarded as being of a customary nature; see also the references cited in Marab v. IDF Commander in Judaea and Samaria [8], at pp. 369-370). A similar principle was established in arts. 43 and 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention whereby the judicial (or administrative) review of a detention decision should be made "as soon as possible" (as stated in art. 43 of the Convention) or "with the least possible delay" (as stated in art. 78 of the Convention). Naturally the question as to what is the earliest possible date for bringing a prisoner before a judge depends upon the circumstances of the case.

In the present case, the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law provides that the date for conducting the initial judicial review is "no later than fourteen days from the date of granting the internment order." The question that arises in this context is whether the said period of time violates the right to personal liberty excessively. The answer to this question lies in the purpose of the Law and in the special circumstances of the particular internment, as well as in the interpretation of the aforesaid provision of the Law. As we have said, the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law applies to foreign entities who belong to terrorist organizations and who are engaged in ongoing hostilities against the State of Israel. As noted, the Law was intended to apply, inter alia, in circumstances in which a state of belligerence exists in territory that is not a part of Israel, in the course of which a relatively large number of enemy combatants may fall into the hands of the military forces. In view of these special circumstances, we do not agree that the maximum period of time of fourteen days for holding an initial judicial review of the detention order departs from the zone of proportionality in such a way as to justify our intervention by shortening the maximum period prescribed in the Law. At the same time, it should be emphasized that the period of time prescribed in the Law is a maximum period and it does not exempt the state from making an effort to conduct a preliminary judicial review of the prisoner's case as soon as possible in view of all the circumstances. In other words, although we find no cause to intervene in the proportionality of the maximum period prescribed in the Law, the power of detention in each specific case should be exercised proportionately, and fourteen whole days should not be allowed to elapse before conducting an initial judicial review where it is possible to conduct a judicial review earlier (cf. ADA 334/04 Darkua v. Minister of the Interior [45], at p. 371, in which it was held that even though under the Entry into Israel Law, 5712-1952, a person taken into custody must be brought before the Custody Review Tribunal no later than fourteen days from the date on which he was taken into custody, the whole of the aforesaid fourteen days should not be used when there is no need to do so).

In concluding these remarks it should be noted that s. 3(c) of the Law, cited above, provides that "An internment order shall be brought to the attention of the prisoner at the earliest possible date, and he shall be given an opportunity to put his submissions in respect of the order before an officer of at least the rank of lieutenant-colonel to be appointed by the Chief of General Staff" [emphasis added - D.B.]. Thus we see that although s. 5(a) of the Law prescribes a maximum period of fourteen days for an initial judicial review, s. 3(c) of the Law imposes an obligation to conduct a hearing for the prisoner before a military officer at the earliest possible time after the order is issued. The aforesaid hearing is certainly not a substitute for a review before a judge of the District Court, which is an independent and objective judicial instance, but the very fact of conducting an early hearing as soon as possible after the issuing of the order may somewhat reduce the concern over an erroneous or ostensibly unjustified detention, which will lead to an excessive violation of the right to liberty.

42.  As stated, the appellants' second argument concerned the frequency of the periodic judicial review of internment under the Law. According to s. 5(c) of the Law, the prisoner must be brought before a District Court judge once every six months from the date of issuing the order; if the court finds that the release of the prisoner will not harm state security or that there are special reasons that justify his release, the court will quash the internment order.

The appellants' argument before us was that a frequency of once every six months is insufficient and it disproportionately violates the right to personal liberty. Regarding this argument, we should point out that the periodic review of the necessity of continuing the administrative detention once every six months is consistent with the requirements of international humanitarian Law. Thus, art. 43 of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides:

'Any protected person who has been interned or placed in assigned residence shall be entitled to have such action reconsidered as soon as possible by an appropriate court or administrative board designated by the Detaining Power for that purpose. If the internment or placing in assigned residence is maintained, the court or administrative board shall periodically, and at least twice yearly, give consideration to his or her case, with a view to the favourable amendment of the initial decision, if circumstances permit.'

It emerges from art. 43 that periodic review of a detention order "at least twice yearly" is consistent with the requirements of international humanitarian law, in a manner that supports the proportionality of the arrangement prescribed in s. 5(c) of the Law. Moreover, whereas art. 43 of the Fourth Geneva Convention considers an administrative review that is carried out by an administrative body to be sufficient, the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law provides that it is a District Court judge who must conduct a judicial review of the internment orders under the Law, and his decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court which will hear the appeal with a single judge (s. 5(d) of the Law). In view of all this, it cannot be said that the arrangement prescribed in the Law with regard to the nature and frequency of the judicial review violates the constitutional right to personal liberty excessively.

 (4) Departure from the rules of evidence and reliance upon privileged evidence within the framework of proceedings under the Law

43.  S. 5(e) of the Law provides as follows:

'Judicial review 

  5. ...

(e) It shall be permissible to depart from the laws of evidence in proceedings under this Law, for reasons to be recorded; the court may admit evidence, even in the absence of the prisoner or his legal representative, or not disclose such evidence to the aforesaid if, after having reviewed the evidence or heard the submissions, even in the absence of the prisoner or his legal representative,  it is convinced that disclosure of the evidence to the prisoner or his legal representative is likely to harm state security or public security; this provision shall not derogate from any right not to give evidence under Chapter 3 of the Evidence Ordinance [New Version], 5731-1971.

The appellants' argument before us was that the arrangement prescribed in the aforesaid s. 5(e) disproportionately violates the right to personal liberty, since it allows the judicial review of an internment order by virtue of the Law to depart from the laws of evidence and it allows evidence to be heard ex parte in the absence of the prisoner and his legal representative and without it being disclosed to them.

With respect to this argument it should be noted that by their very nature, administrative detention proceedings are based on administrative evidence concerning security matters. The nature of administrative detention for security reasons requires recourse to evidence that does not satisfy the admissibility tests of the laws of evidence and that therefore may not be submitted in a regular criminal trial. Obviously the confidentiality of the sources of the information is important, and it is therefore often not possible to disclose all the intelligence material that is used to prove the grounds for detention. Reliance on inadmissible administrative evidence and on privileged material for reasons of state security lies at the heart of administrative detention, for if there were sufficient admissible evidence that could be shown to the prisoner and brought before the court, as a rule the measure of criminal indictment should be chosen (see Federman v. Minister of Defence [41], at p. 185-186). There is no doubt that a proceeding that is held ex parte in order to present privileged evidence to the court has many drawbacks. But the security position in which we find ourselves in view of the persistent hostilities against the security of the State of Israel requires recourse to tools of this kind when granting a detention order under the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law, the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law or the security legislation in areas under military control.

It should be emphasized that in view of the problems inherent in relying upon administrative evidence for the purpose of detention, over the years the judiciary has developed a tool for control and scrutiny of intelligence material, to the extent possible in a proceeding of the kind that takes place in judicial review of administrative detention. In the framework of these proceedings the judge is required to question the validity and credibility of the administrative evidence that is brought before him and to assess its weight. In this regard the following was held in HCJ 4400/98 Braham v. Justice Colonel Shefi [46], at p. 346, per Justice T. Or:

'The basic right of every human being as such to liberty is not an empty slogan. The protection of this basic value requires that we imbue the process of judicial review of administrative detention with meaningful content. In this framework, I am of the opinion that the professional judge can and should consider not only the question of whether, prima facie, the competent authority was authorized to decide what it decided on the basis of the material that was before it; the judge should also consider the question of the credibility of the material that was submitted as a part of his assessment of the weight of the material. Indeed, that fact that certain "material" is valid administrative evidence does not exempt the judge from examining the degree of its credibility against the background of the other evidence and all the circumstances of the case. In this context, the "administrative evidence" label does not exempt the judge from having to demand and receive explanations from those authorities that are capable of providing them. To say otherwise would mean weakening considerably the process of judicial review, and allowing the deprivation of liberty for prolonged periods on the basis of flimsy and insufficient material. Such an outcome is unacceptable in a legal system that regards human liberty as a basic right.'

It has also been held in our case law that in view of the problems inherent in submitting privileged evidence ex parte, the court that conducts a judicial review of an administrative detention is required to act with caution and great precision when examining the material that is brought before it for its eyes only. In such circumstances, the court has a duty to act with extra caution and to examine the privileged material brought before it from the viewpoint of the prisoner, who has not seen the material and cannot argue against it. In the words of Justice A. Procaccia: "… the court has a special duty to act with great care when examining privileged material and to act as the 'mouth' of the prisoner where he has not seen the material against him and cannot defend himself" (HCJ 11006/04 Kadri v. IDF Commander in Judaea and Samaria [47], at para. 6; see also CrimApp 3514/97 A v. State of Israel [48]).

Thus we see that in view of the reliance on administrative evidence and the admission of privileged evidence ex parte, the court conducting a judicial review under the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law is required to act with caution and precision in examining the material brought before it. The scope of the judicial review cannot be defined ab initio and it is subject to the discretion of the judge, who will take into account the circumstances of each case on its merits, such as the quantity, level and quality of the privileged material brought before him for his inspection, as opposed to the activity attributed to the prisoner that gives rise to the allegation that he represents a threat to state security. In a similar context the following was held:

'Information relating to several incidents is not the same as information concerning an isolated incident; information from one source is not the same as information from several sources; and information that is entirely based on the statements of agents and informers only is not the same as information that is also supported or corroborated by documents submitted by the security or intelligence services that derive from employing special measures' (per Justice E. Mazza in HCJ 5994/03 Sadar v. IDF Commander in West Bank [49], at para.  6).

Considering all the aforesaid reasons, the requisite conclusion is that reliance on inadmissible evidence and privileged evidentiary material is an essential part of administrative detention. In view of the fact that the quality and quantity of the administrative evidence that supports the cause of detention is subject to judicial review, and in view of the caution with which the court is required to examine the privileged material brought before it ex parte, it cannot be said that the arrangement prescribed in s. 5(e) of the Law, per se, violates the rights of prisoners disproportionately.

(5)     Prisoner's meeting with his lawyer

44. S. 6 of the Law, which is entitled "Right of prisoner to meet with lawyer"' provides the following:

'6. (a) The internee may meet with a lawyer at the

earliest possible date on which such a meeting may be held without harming state security requirements, but no later than seven days prior to his being brought before a judge of the District Court, in accordance with the provisions of s. 5(a).

(b) The Minister of Justice may, by order, confine the right of representation in the proceedings under this Law to a person authorized to act as defence counsel in the military courts under an unrestricted authorization, pursuant to the provisions of s. 318(c) of the Military Justice Law, 5715-1955.'

The appellants raised two main arguments against the proportionality of the arrangements prescribed in the aforesaid s. 6: first, it was argued that under s. 6(a) of the Law, it is possible to prevent a meeting of a prisoner with his lawyer for a period of up to seven days, during which a hearing is supposed to be conducted for the prisoner under s. 3(c) of the Law. It is argued that conducting a hearing without allowing the prisoner to consult a lawyer first is likely to render the hearing meaningless in a manner that constitutes an excessive violation of the right to personal liberty. Secondly, it was argued that s. 6(b) of the Law, which makes representation dependent upon an unrestricted authorization for the lawyer to act as defence counsel, also violates the rights of the prisoner disproportionately.

Regarding the appellants' first argument: no one disputes that the right of the prisoner to be represented by a lawyer constitutes a major basic right that has been recognized in our legal system since its earliest days (see in this regard CrimA 5121/98 Yissacharov v. Chief Military Prosecutor [50], at para. 14, and the references cited there). According to both the basic principles of Israeli law and the principles of international law, the rule is that a prisoner should be allowed to meet with his lawyer as a part of the right of every human being to personal liberty (see the remarks of President A. Barak in Marab v. IDF Commander in Judaea and Samaria [8], at pp. 380-381). Therefore, s. 6(a) of the Law provides that a prisoner should be allowed to meet with his lawyer "at the earliest possible date." It should, however, be recalled that like all human rights, the right to legal counsel, too, is not absolute, and it may be restricted if this is essential for protecting the security of the state (see HCJ 3412/93 Sufian v. IDF Commander in Gaza Strip [51], at p. 849; HCJ 6302/92 Rumhiah v. Israel Police [52], at pp. 212-213). As such, s. 6(a) of the Law provides that the meeting of the prisoner with his lawyer may be postponed for security reasons, but no more than seven days may elapse before he is brought before a District Court judge pursuant to s. 5(a) of the Law. Since pursuant to the aforementioned s. 5(a) a prisoner must be brought before a District Court judge no later than fourteen days from the date on which the internment order is granted, this means that a meeting between a prisoner and his lawyer may not be prevented for more than seven days from the time the detention order is granted against him.

Bearing in mind the security purpose of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law and in view of the fact that the aforesaid Law was intended to apply in prolonged states of hostilities and even in circumstances where the army is fighting in a territory that is not under Israeli control, it cannot be said that a maximum period of seven days during which a meeting of a prisoner with a lawyer may be prevented when security needs so require falls outside the zone of proportionality (see and cf. Marab v. IDF Commander in Judaea and Samaria [8], where it was held that "[a]s long as the hostilities continue, there is no basis for allowing a prisoner to meet with a lawyer," (at p. 381); see also HCJ 2901/02 Centre for Defence of the Individual v. IDF Commander in West Bank [53]).

In addition to the above, two further points should be made: first, even though the prisoner may be asked to make his submissions in the course of the hearing under s. 3(c) of the Law without having first consulted a lawyer, s. 6(a) of the Law provides that the state should allow the prisoner to meet with his defence counsel "no later than seven days prior to his being brought before a judge of the District Court…." It follows that as a rule, the prisoner is represented in the process of judicial review of the granting of the detention by virtue of the Law. It seems that this could reduce the impact of the violation of the right to consult a lawyer as a part of the right to personal liberty. Secondly, it should be emphasized that the maximum period of seven days does not exempt the state from its obligation to allow the prisoner to meet with his lawyer at the earliest possible opportunity, in circumstances where security needs permit this. Therefore the question of the proportionality of the period during which a meeting between the prisoner and his defence counsel is prevented is a function of the circumstances of each case on its merits. It should be noted that a similar arrangement exists in international law, which determines the period of time during which a meeting with a lawyer may be prevented with regard to all the circumstances of the case, without stipulating maximum times for preventing the meeting (see in this regard, Marab v. IDF Commander in Judaea and Samaria [8], at p. 381).

45.  The appellants' second argument concerning s. 6(b) of the Law should also be rejected. Making representation dependent upon an unrestricted authorization for the lawyer to act as defence counsel under the provisions of s. 318(c) of the Military Justice Law, 5715-1955, is necessary for security reasons, in view of the security-sensitive nature of administrative detention proceedings. The appellants did not argue that the need for an unrestricted authorization as aforesaid affected the quality of the representation that they received, and in any case they did not point to any real violation of their rights in this regard. Consequently the appellants' arguments against the proportionality of the arrangement prescribed in s. 6 of the Law should be rejected.

 (6)      The length of internment under the Law

46.       From the provisions of ss. 3, 7 and 8 of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law it emerges that an internment order under the Law need not include a defined date for the end of the internment. The Law itself does not prescribe a maximum period of time for the internment imposed thereunder, apart from the determination that it should not continue after the hostile acts of the force to which the prisoner belongs against the State of Israel "have ceased" (see ss. 7 and 8 of the Law). According to the appellants, this is an improper internment without any time limit, which disproportionately violates the constitutional right to personal liberty. In reply, the state argues that the length of the internment is not "unlimited", but depends on the duration of the hostilities being carried out against the security of the State of Israel by the force to which the prisoner belongs.

It should be said at the outset that issuing an internment order that does not include a specific time limit for its termination does indeed raise a significant difficulty, especially in the circumstances that we are addressing, where the "hostile acts" of the various terrorist organizations, including the Hezbollah organization which is relevant to the appellants' cases, have continued for many years, and naturally it is impossible to know when they will cease. In this reality, prisoners under the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law may remain in detention for prolonged periods of time. Nevertheless, as we shall explain immediately, the purpose of the Law and the special circumstances in which it was intended to apply, lead to the conclusion that the fundamental arrangement that allows detention orders to be issued without a defined date for their termination does not depart from the zone of proportionality, especially in view of the judicial review arrangements prescribed in the Law.

As we have said, the purpose of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law is to prevent "unlawful combatants" as defined in s. 2 of the Law from returning to the cycle of hostilities, as long as the hostile acts are continuing and threatening the security of the citizens and residents of the State of Israel. On the basis of a similar rationale, the Third Geneva Convention allows prisoners of war to be interned until the hostilities have ceased, in order to prevent them from returning to the cycle of hostilities as long as the fighting continues. Even in the case of civilians who are detained during an armed conflict, the rule under international humanitarian law is that they should be released from detention immediately after the concrete cause for the detention no longer exists and no later than the date of cessation of the hostilities (see J. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law (vol. 1, 2005), at page 451; also cf. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), at pages 518-519, where the United States Supreme Court held that the detention of members of forces hostile to the United States and operating against it in Afghanistan until the end of the specific dispute that led to their arrest is consistent with basic and fundamental principles of the laws of war).

The conclusion that emerges in view of the aforesaid is that the fundamental arrangement that allows a internment order to be granted under the Law without a defined termination date, except for the determination that the internment will not continue after the hostile acts against the State of Israel have ended, does not exceed the bounds of the room for constitutional maneuver. It should, however, be emphasized that the question of the proportionality of the duration of internment under the Law should be examined in each case on its merits and according to its specific circumstances. As we have said, the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law prescribes a duty to conduct a periodic judicial review once every six months. The purpose of the judicial review is to examine whether the threat presented by the prisoner to state security justifies the continuation of the internment, or whether the internment order should be cancelled in circumstances where the release of the prisoner will not harm the security of the state or where there are special reasons justifying the release (see s. 5(c) of the Law). When examining the need to extend the internment, the court should take into account inter alia the period of time that has elapsed since the order was issued. The ruling in A v. Minister of Defence [1] concerning detention under the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law, per President A. Barak, holds true in our case as well:

'Administrative detention cannot continue indefinitely. The longer the period of detention has lasted, the more significant the reasons that are required to justify a further extension of detention. With the passage of time the measure of administrative detention becomes onerous to such an extent that it ceases to be proportionate' (ibid., at p. 744).

Similarly it was held in A v. IDF Commander [16] with regard to administrative detention by virtue of security legislation in the region of Judea and Samaria that -

'The duration of the detention is a function of the threat. This threat is examined in accordance with the circumstances. It depends upon the level of risk that the evidence attributes to the administrative prisoner. It depends upon the credibility of the evidence itself and how current it is. The longer the duration of the administrative detention, the greater the onus on the military commander to demonstrate the threat presented by the administrative prisoner' (ibid., at para. 7).

Indeed, as opposed to the arrangements prescribed in the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law and in the security legislation, a court acting pursuant to the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law does not conduct a judicial review of the extension of the internment order, but examines the question of whether there is a justification for cancelling an existing order, for the reasons listed in s. 5(c) of the Law. Nevertheless, even an internment order under the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law cannot be sustained indefinitely. The period of time that has elapsed since the order was granted constitutes a relevant and important consideration in the periodic judicial review for determining whether the continuation of the internment is necessary. In the words of Justice A. Procaccia in a similar context:

'The longer the period of the administrative detention, the greater the weight of the prisoner's right to his personal liberty when balanced against considerations of public interest, and therefore the greater the onus placed upon the competent authority to show that it is necessary to continue holding the person concerned in detention. For this purpose, new evidence relating to the prisoner's case may be required, and it is possible that the original evidence that led to his internment in the first place will be insufficient' (Kadri v. IDF Commander in Judaea and Samaria  [47], at para. 6).

In view of all the above, a court that conducts a judicial review of an internment under the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law is authorized to confine and shorten the period of internment in view of the nature and weight of the evidence brought before it regarding the security threat presented by the prisoner as an "unlawful combatant" and in view of the time that has passed since the internment order was issued. By means of judicial review it is possible to ensure that the absence of a concrete termination date for the internment order under the Law will not constitute an excessive violation of the right to personal liberty, and that prisoners under the Law will not be interned for a longer period greater than that required by material security considerations.

(7) The possibility of conducting criminal proceedings parallel to an internment proceeding by virtue of the Law

47. S. 9 of the Law, which is entitled "Criminal proceedings", provides the following:

'9. (a) Criminal proceedings may be initiated against an unlawful combatant under the provisions of any law.

(b) The Chief of Staff may make an order for the internment of an unlawful combatant under s. 3, even if criminal proceedings have been initiated against him under the provisions of any law.'

According to the appellants, the aforesaid s. 9 violates the right to personal liberty disproportionately since it makes it possible to detain a person under the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law even though criminal proceedings have already been initiated against him, and vice versa. The argument is that by conducting both sets of proceedings it is possible to continue to intern a person even after he has finished serving the sentence imposed on him in the criminal proceeding, in a manner that allegedly amounts to cruel punishment. In reply the state argued that this is a fitting and proportionate arrangement in view of the fact that it is intended to apply in circumstances in which a person will shortly finish serving his criminal sentence and hostilities are still continuing between the organization of which he is a member and the State of Israel; consequently, his release may harm state security.

In relation to these arguments we should reiterate what we said earlier (at para. 33 above), i.e. that initiating a criminal trial against a person is different in its nature and purpose from the measure of administrative detention. In general it is desirable and even preferable to make use of criminal proceedings where this is possible. Recourse to the extreme measure of administrative detention is justified in circumstances where other measures, including the conduct of a criminal trial, are not possible, due to lack of sufficient admissible evidence or because it is impossible to disclose privileged sources. However, the reality of prolonged terrorist operations is complex. There may be cases in which a person is detained under the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law and only at a later stage evidence is discovered that makes it possible to initiate criminal proceedings. There may be other cases in which a person has been tried and convicted and has served his sentence, but this does not provide a satisfactory solution to preventing the threat that he presents to state security in circumstances in which, after having served the sentence, he may once again become a security threat. Since a criminal trial and administrative detention are proceedings that differ from each other in their character and purpose, they do not rule each other out, even though in my opinion substantial and particularly weighty security considerations are required to justify recourse to both types of proceeding against the same person. In any case, the normative arrangement that allows criminal proceedings to be conducted alongside detention proceedings under the Law does not, in itself, create a disproportionate violation of the right to liberty of the kind that requires our intervention.

Interim summary

48.  Our discussion thus far of the requirement of proportionality has led to the following conclusions: first, the measure chosen by the legislator, i.e. administrative detention that prevents the "unlawful combatant" from returning to the cycle of hostilities against the State of Israel, realizes the legislative purpose and therefore satisfies the requirement of a rational connection between the legislative measure and the purpose that the Law is intended to realize. Secondly, the measures mentioned by the appellants in their arguments before us, i.e. recognizing them as prisoners of war, bringing them to a criminal trial or detaining them under the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law, do not realize the purpose of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law and therefore they cannot constitute a suitable alternative measure to internment in accordance with the Law. Thirdly, the specific arrangements prescribed in the Law do not, per se and irrespective of the manner in which they are implemented, violate the right to personal liberty excessively, and they fall within the bounds of the room for constitutional maneuver granted to the legislature. In view of all this, the question that remains to be examined is whether the combination of the arrangements prescribed in the Law satisfies the test of proportionality in the narrow sense. In other words, is the violation of the right to personal liberty reasonably commensurate with the public benefit that arises from it in achieving the legislative purpose? Let us now examine this question.

Proportionality in the narrow sense - A reasonable relationship between  violation of the constitutional right and the public benefit it engenders

49.       The Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law was enacted against the background of a harsh security situation. The citizens and residents of the State of Israel have lived under the constant threat of murderous terrorism of which they have been victim for years and which has harmed the innocent indiscriminately. In view of this, we held that the security purpose of the Law - the removal of "unlawful combatants" from the terrorist organizations' cycle of hostilities against the State of Israel - constitutes a proper purpose that is based on a public need of a kind that is capable of justifying a significant violation of the right to personal liberty. For all these reasons, we were of the opinion that the legislature should be accorded relatively wide room for maneuver to allow it to choose the proper measure for realizing the legislative purpose (see para. 31 above).

As we have said, the measure that the legislature chose in order to realize the purpose of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law is administrative detention in accordance with the arrangements that are prescribed in the Law. There is no doubt that this is a damaging measure that should be employed as little as possible. However, a look at the combined totality of the above arrangements, in the light of the interpretation that we discussed above, leads to the conclusion that according to constitutional criteria, the violation of the constitutional right is reasonably commensurate with the social benefit that arises from the realization of the legislative purpose. This conclusion is based on the following considerations taken together:

 First, for the reasons that we discussed at the beginning of our deliberations, the scope of application of the Law is relatively limited: the Law does not apply to citizens and residents of the State of Israel but only to foreign parties who endanger the security of the state (see para. 11 above).

Secondly, the interpretation of the definition of "unlawful combatant" in s. 2 of the Law is subject to constitutional principles and international humanitarian law that require proof of an individual threat as a basis for administrative detention. Consequently, for the purpose of internment under the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law, the state must furnish administrative proof that the prisoner directly or indirectly played a material part - one which is neither negligible nor marginal - in hostile acts against the State of Israel; or that the prisoner belonged to an organization that is perpetrating hostile acts, taking into account his connection and the extent of his contribution to the organization's cycle of hostilities in the broad sense of this concept. In our remarks above we said that proving the conditions of the definition of "unlawful combatant" in the said sense includes proof of a personal threat that arises from the form in which the prisoner was involved in the terrorist organization. We also said that the state has declared before us that until now it has taken pains to prove the personal threat of all the prisoners under the Law specifically, and it has refrained from relying on the probative presumptions in ss. 7 and 8 of the Law. In view of this, we saw no reason to decide the question of the constitutionality of those presumptions (see paras. 24 and 25 above).

Thirdly, we held that in view of the fact that administrative detention is an unusual and extreme measure, and in view of its significant violation of the constitutional right to personal liberty, the state is required to prove, by means of clear and convincing evidence, that the conditions of the definition of "unlawful combatant" are fulfilled and that the continuation of the internment is essential. This must be done in both the initial and the periodic judicial reviews. In this context we held that importance should be attached both to the quantity and the quality of the evidence against the prisoner and to the extent that the relevant intelligence information against him is current (see paras. 22 and 23 above).

Fourthly, we attributed substantial weight to the fact that internment orders under the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law are subject to preliminary and periodic judicial reviews before a District Court judge, whose decisions may be appealed to the Supreme Court, which will hear the case with a single judge. Within the framework of these proceedings, the judge is required to consider the question of the validity and credibility of the administrative evidence that is brought before him and to assess its weight. In view of the reliance upon administrative evidence and the fact that privileged evidence is admitted ex parte, we held that the judge should act with caution and great precision when examining the material brought before him. We also held that a court that conducts a judicial review of internment under the Law may restrict and shorten the period of internment in view of the nature and weight of the evidence brought before it regarding the security threat presented by the prisoner as an "unlawful combatant", and in view of the time that has elapsed since the internment order was issued. For this reason we said that it is possible, through the process of judicial review, to ensure that the absence of a specific date for the termination of the detention order under the Law does not violate the right to personal liberty excessively, and that prisoners by virtue of the Law will not be interned for a longer period than what is required by substantial security considerations (para. 46 above).

Finally, although the arrangements prescribed in the Law for the purpose of exercising the power of internment are not the only possible ones, we reached the conclusion that the statutory arrangements that we considered do not exceed the bounds of the room for maneuver to an extent that required our intervention. In our remarks above we emphasized that the periods of time prescribed by the Law for conducting a preliminary judicial review after the internment order has been granted, and with respect to preventing a meeting between the prisoner and his lawyer, constitute maximum periods that do not exempt the state from the duty to make an effort to shorten these periods in each case on its merits, insofar as this is possible in view of the security constraints and all the circumstances of the case. We also held that internment under the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law cannot continue indefinitely, and that the question of the proportionality of the duration of the detention must also be examined in each case on its merits according to the particular circumstances.

In view of all of the aforesaid considerations, and in view of the existence of relatively wide room for constitutional maneuver in view of the essential purpose of the Law as explained above, our conclusion is that the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law satisfies the third subtest of the requirement of proportionality, i.e., that the violation of the constitutional right to personal liberty is reasonably commensurate with the benefit accruing to the public from the said legislation. Our conclusion is based on the fact that according to the interpretation discussed above, the Law does not allow the internment of innocent persons who have no real connection to the cycle of hostilities of the terror organizations, and it establishes mechanisms whose purpose is to ameliorate the violation of the prisoners' rights, including a cause of detention that is based on a threat to state security and the conducting of a hearing and preliminary and periodic judicial reviews of internment under the Law.

Therefore, for all the reasons that we have mentioned above, it is possible to determine that the violation of the constitutional right to personal liberty as a result of the Law, although significant and severe, is not excessive. Our conclusion is therefore that the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law satisfies the conditions of the limitation clause, and there is no constitutional ground for our intervention.

From the General to the Specific

50.  As we said at the outset, the appellants, who are inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, were originally detained in the years 2002-2003, when the Gaza Strip was subject to belligerent occupation. At that time, the administrative detention of the appellants was carried out pursuant to security legislation that was in force in the Gaza Strip. Following the end of military rule in the Gaza Strip in September 2005 and the nullification of the security legislation in force there, on 20 September 2005 the Chief of Staff issued internment orders for the appellants under the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law.

On 22 September 2005 the Tel-Aviv-Jaffa District Court began the initial judicial review of the appellants' case. From then until now the District Court has conducted four periodic judicial reviews of the appellants' continuing internment. The appeal against the decision of the District Court not to order the release of the appellants within the framework of the initial judicial review was denied by this court on 14 March 2006 (Justice E. Rubinstein in CrimA 1221/06 Iyyad v. State of Israel [54]). Before us are the appeals on three additional periodic decisions of the District Court not to rescind the appellants' internment orders.

51.  In their pleadings, the appellants raised two main arguments regarding their particular cases: first, it was argued that according to the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel should have released the appellants when the military rule in the Gaza Strip ended, since they were inhabitants of an occupied territory that was liberated. Secondly, it was argued that even if the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law is constitutional, no cause for internment thereunder has been proved with respect to the appellants. According to this argument, it was not proved that the appellants are members of the Hezbollah organization, nor has it been proved that their release would harm state security.

52.  We cannot accept the appellants' first argument. The end of military rule in the Gaza Strip did not obligate Israel to automatically release all the prisoners it held who are inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, as long as the personal threat posed by the prisoners persisted against the background of the continued hostilities against the State of Israel. This conclusion is clearly implied by the arrangements set out in arts. 132-133 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Art. 132 of the Convention establishes the general principle that the date for the release of prisoners is as soon as the reasons that necessitated their internment no longer exist. The first part of art. 133 of the Convention, which relates to a particular case that is included within the parameters of the aforesaid general principle, goes on to provide that the internment will end as soon as possible after the close of hostilities. Art. 134 of the Convention, which concerns the question of the location at which the prisoners should be released, also relates to the date on which hostilities end as the date on which prisoners should be released from internment. Unfortunately, the hostile acts of the terrorist organizations against the State of Israel have not yet ceased, and they result in physical injuries and mortalities on an almost daily basis. In such circumstances, the laws of armed conflict continue to apply. Consequently it cannot be said that international law requires Israel to release the prisoners that it held when military rule in the Gaza Strip came to an end, when it is possible to prove the continued individual danger posed by the prisoners against the background of the continued hostilities against the security of the state.

53. With regard to the specific internment orders against the appellants by virtue of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law, the District Court heard the testimonies of experts on behalf of the security establishment and studied the evidence brought before it. We too studied the material that was brought before us during the hearing of the appeal. The material clearly demonstrates the close links of the appellants to the Hezbollah organization and their role in the organization's ranks, including involvement in hostile acts against Israeli civilian targets.  We are therefore convinced that the individual threat of the appellants to state security has been proved, even without resorting to the probative presumption in s. 7 of the Law (see and cf. per Justice E. Rubinstein in Iyyad v. State of Israel [54], at para. 8(11) of his opinion). In view of the aforesaid, we cannot accept the appellants' contention that the change in the form of their detention - from detention by virtue of an order of the IDF Commander in the Gaza Strip to internment orders under the Law - was done arbitrarily and without any real basis in the evidence. As we have said, the change in the form of detention was necessitated by the end of the military rule in the Gaza Strip, and that is why it was done at that time. The choice of internment under the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law as opposed to detention under the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law was made, as we explained above, because of the purpose of the Law under discussion and because it is suited to the circumstances of the appellants' cases.

The appellants further argued that their release does not pose any threat to state security since their family members who were involved in terrorist activities have been arrested or killed by the security forces, so that the terrorist infrastructure that existed before they were detained no longer exists. They also argued that the passage of time since they were arrested reduces the risk that they present. Regarding these arguments it should be said that after inspecting the material submitted to us, we are convinced that the arrest or death of some of the appellants' family members does not per se remove the security threat that the appellants would present were they to be released from detention. We are also convinced that, in the circumstances of the case, the time that has passed since the appellants were first detained has not reduced the threat that they present. In its decision in the third periodic review, the trial court addressed this issue as follows:

'The total period of the detention is not short. But this is countered by the anticipated threat to state security if the prisoners are released. As we have said, a proper balance should be struck between the two. The experts are once again adamant in their opinion that there is a strong likelihood that the two prisoners will resume their terrorist activity if they are released. In such circumstances, the operational abilities of the Hezbollah infrastructure in the Gaza Strip and outside it will be enhanced and the threats to the security of the state and its citizens will increase. The current situation in the Gaza Strip is of great importance to our case. The fact that the Hamas organization has taken control of the Gaza Strip and other recent events increase the risks and, what is more, the difficulty of dealing with them.... It would therefore be a grave and irresponsible act to release these two persons, especially at this time, when their return to terrorism can be anticipated and is liable to increase the activity in this field. I cannot say, therefore, that the passage of time has reduced the threat presented by the two prisoners, who are senior figures in the terrorist infrastructure, despite the differences between them. Neither has the passage of time reduced the threat that they represent to an extent that would allow their release.'

In its decision in the fourth periodic review the trial court also emphasized the great threat presented by the two appellants:

'The privileged evidence brought before me reveals that the return of the two to the field is likely to act as a springboard for serious attacks and acts of terror. In other words, according to the evidence brought before me, the respondents are very dangerous. In my opinion it is not at all possible to order their release. This conclusion does not ignore the long years that the two of them have been held behind prison walls. The long period of time has not reduced the threat that they represent' (at page 6 of the court's decision of 20 March 2008).

In view of all of these reasons, and after having studied the material that was brought before us and having been convinced that there is sufficient evidence to prove the individual security threat represented by the appellants, we have reached the conclusion that the trial court was justified when it refused to cancel the internment orders in their cases. It should be pointed out that the significance of the passage of time naturally increases when we are dealing with administrative detention. At the present time, however, we find no reason to intervene in the decision of the trial court.

In view of the result that we have reached, we are not required to examine the appellants' argument against the additional reason that the trial court included in its decision, relating to the fact that the evidence was strengthened by the silence of the first appellant in the judicial review proceeding that took place in his case, a proceeding that was based, inter alia, on privileged evidence that was not shown to the prisoner and his legal representative. The question of the probative significance of a prisoner's silence in judicial review proceedings under the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law does not require a decision in the circumstances of the case before us and we see no reason to express a position on this matter.

Therefore, for all of the reasons set out above, we have reached the conclusion that the appeals should be denied.

 

Justice E.E. Levy:

I agree with the comprehensive opinion of my colleague, the President.

It is in the nature of things that differences may arise between the rules of international humanitarian law - especially written rules - and the language of Israeli security legislation, if only because those conventions that regulate the conduct of players on the international stage were formulated in a very different reality, and their drafters did not know of entities such as the Hezbollah organization and the like.

Therefore, insofar as it is possible to do so by means of legal interpretation, the court will try to narrow these differences in a way that realizes both the principles of international law and the purpose of internal legislation. In this regard I will say that I would have preferred to refrain from arriving at any conclusions, even in passing, regarding the provisions of ss. 7 and 8 of the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law, 5762-2002. These provisions are a central part of this Law, as enacted by the Knesset. Insofar as there are differences between them and the provisions of international law, as argued by the appellants and implied by the state's declarations with regard to the manner in which it conducts itself de facto, the legislature ought to take the initiative and address the matter.

Justice A. Procaccia:

I agree with the profound opinion of my colleague, President Beinisch.

Appeals denied as per the judgment of President D. Beinisch.

8 Sivan 5768

11 June 2008