Court leveled criticism, Honenu filed civil suit

Monday, July 11, 2016, 15:21 Honenu filed a civil suit for 30,000 NIS for false detention and severe violation of the rights of a minor who was detained at the Geulat Tzion hilltop community in the Shilo Bloc. “The minor was forced to spend a restless night on a metal bench and on the floor of the police station.”
The suit was filed following a decision by Jerusalem Magistrate Court Judge David Shaul Gabai Richter whose ruling unconditionally released a detained youth. The youth was also not required to sign on bail due to the severe violation of his rights and the night spent in remand without justification.
The minor was detained on May 23 at Geulat Tzion on suspicion of violating a closed military zone order placed on the hilltop in order to prevent a Jewish presence in the area. He was detained at 21:30 and at 1:44 his interrogation ended. Instead of bringing him to a detention center for the night, the policemen left him at the police station under poor conditions and he was forced to sleep on a bench.
The following morning he was brought to a deliberation at which the police requested that he be conditionally released and it turned out that he had unnecessarily spent the night in remand.
Honenu Attorney Menasheh Yado wrote in his letter that this was a false detention: “If the police wanted to conditionally release the complainant they should have done so immediately and not unnecessarily kept him in remand overnight only to bring him to a deliberation for release conditions.”
Yado also noted the deprivation of the complainant’s rights including the right to sleep on a bed and to receive food at his level of kashrut, among others). “When the police decided to keep the complainant in remand overnight they should have provided the basic needs determined by law and regulations… The minor was forced to spend a restless night on a metal bench and on the floor of the police station.”
The police also violated the law when they brought the minor handcuffed and leg-cuffed to the courthouse for the deliberation on his release conditions. “The policemen added insult to injury when they brought the minor through the corridors of the courthouse handcuffed and leg-cuffed in front of all present! There was no justification for this and it was in blatant disregard for the law,” wrote Yado.
“The law has been systematically trampled and fundamental rights blatantly violated. This case is all the more serious in light of the fact that the police themselves knew at the time that they intended to release the complainant and they did not claim that he was dangerous or that there was a concern that he would escape from custody.”
“The actions of the police are all the more serious in light of the fact that the plaintiff is a minor,” added Yado and stressed that the detention of minors on hilltops and severe violation of their rights is a frequent occurrence. In the suit Yado wrote that the element of deterrence must be added to the guilt of the police who continue to carry out injustices against detainees.
“We are aware that the serious actions carried out in this case are not unusual, but rather a frequently repeated violation of the law and court rulings and that is the impetus for filing the suit… The police should have known that this practice is unacceptable being as the courts have leveled criticism at them for it many times.”