The right not to be confined is therefore a basic constitutional right, and case law has discussed this in the past (Criminal Appeal 6182/98 Sheinbein v. the Attorney General (hereinafter - the Sheinbein case [44]), at p. 658; The Hashek case [39], at p. 495; High Court of Justice 3992/04 Maimon-Cohen v. Minister of Foreign Affairs (hereinafter -
The Maimon-Cohen case [45]), at p. 56; the Issa case [36], at pp. 41-42). All government authorities - including the courts - are mandated to protect it (section 11 of the Basic Law).
This right has two aspects: the first aspect derives its strength from the right to liberty in the simple sense. Just as placing a person in detention or imprisonment infringes on his liberty, so too extradition to another country, especially assuming that he will be exposed to a similar risk there; The second aspect concerns the harm suffered by a person from his detachment from his familiar environment and his exposure to the dangers of a foreign legal system, with its substantive law, its evidentiary and procedural rules, and the punitive policy that applies to it. In this sense, a person's "personal freedom" also includes his freedom to dig up the environment in which he will be found and the system of norms, including legal ones, to which he will be subjected. President Barak explained this in the Sheinbein case [44], at p. 637:
"...It would be unjust to judge a person in a country whose laws he is not aware of, whose culture he does not know and whose language he does not speak. It is not appropriate to cut off a person from his country, from his family, from his witnesses and from his people..."
However, as with all rights, the right not to be confined is not absolute. It is confronted by conflicting interests, on the basis of which the law may permit, in certain circumstances, the infringement of the right (see the Stash case [39], at p. 495). The constitutional mechanism that regulates this is, as is well known, the "Limitation Clause" - section 8 of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty - with its four cumulative conditions, according to which: in order for the infringement to be legitimized, it must be shown that it is done by law or in accordance with it, that its purpose is appropriate, that it is consistent with the values of the State of Israel, and that it does not exceed what is required.