Case Number

HCJ 5784/03, HCJ 6024/03 , HCJ 6025/03

Date Decided

8-11-2003

Decision Type

Original

Document Type

Full Opinion

Abstract

Facts: Based on classified evidence tying them to terror organizations, detention orders were issued against the three petitioners. The orders were extended by respondent, and these extensions were confirmed by the Military Appeals Court. Petitioners claim that the extensions are not legal. They argue that respondents should corroborate the suspicions against them with further investigation. This would allow the detention orders to be replaced by a criminal proceeding.

Held: The Court noted that the basic premise of administrative detention is the need to prevent future danger to the security of the state of public safety. Administrative detention is not meant to be used in place of criminal proceedings. Such detention infringes the fundamental freedoms of the detainee. As such, in reviewing administrative detention orders, court must carefully and meticulously examine the evidence against the detainee. In extending a detention order, the security authorities must examine current and up-to-date evidence against the detainee. In light of these principles, and in light of the evidence upon which the administrative detention orders were based, the court held that the decision of the Military Appeals Court to confirm them was a proper exercise of its judicial discretion.

Keywords

Administrative Law, Constitutional Law -- Prisoners’ Rights, Constitutional Law -- State of Emergency and National Security

Download

Share

COinS