Pharmaceutical Compensation and Indirect DamagesAs to the damages to the estate, it was argued that, contrary to the ruling of the trial court, there is a dispute as to the liability of the appellants, and to the extent that they were able to present evidence in this regard, they were able to prove that they were no longer rewarded for acts of terrorism; that it was appropriate to award the compensation for the non-pecuniary damage to the lower party in view of the fact that no evidence was brought as to the circumstances of the deceased's death, and taking into account the exemplary damages that were awarded; that there was no room to award compensation on the head of the damage of burial expenses because they are paid by the state; and that the respondents are entitled to only 75% of the amount of compensation in the present The Compensation for Victims of Hostile Acts Law (Amendment No. 43), 5784-2024 (Hereinafter: Amendment No. 43 to the Compensation Law). As to the recognition of respondents 3-5 as indirect victims, the appellants argue, inter alia, that the conditions of the rule have not been proven Alsoja In their case; and that the medical opinions submitted on the matter should not be relied upon, and therefore it has not been proven that they suffered permanent disabilities. At the same time, the appellants raise arguments regarding the amounts of compensation awarded to each of the indirect victims, which I will address later if necessary.
- The respondents rely on the judgment of the trial court. In the matter Applicability of the Exemplary Compensation Law, the respondents claim that in the case of Anonymous Although this court discussed the question of whether a "ratifier" under the Torts Ordinance can also be liable for punitive damages, the Model Compensation Law expanded the scope and created a new normative source. The respondents argue that the appellants' position that an act of the court applied in their case discriminates only against them, and this is only due to the fact that they were the "pioneer before the camp" and waged a stubborn legal battle; and that this position contradicts the appellants' arguments in the matter PA, where they argued that the law applies to all pending claims. As to the argument that the appellants were not given the right to a plea, the respondents insist that in the Anonymous It was held that the appellants were transferring funds in support of terrorism, and in any event, any change in their policy was forward-looking and could not detract from their responsibility in relation to attacks for which there is already a definitive determination. In addition, according to the respondents' approach, there is no basis for the distinction made by the appellants between an injured person with physical damage and an injured person with emotional damage with respect to the applicability of section 2(b) of the Law; The language of the law is clear and there is no room to award compensation that is less than the amount specified therein.
In the matter The amount of the medication compensation and the indirect damages. The respondents are of the opinion, inter alia, that the argument with respect to the amount of non-pecuniary damage awarded to the estate of the deceased is an outrageous claim that is not at all worthy of being heard; and that in any event, the exemplary compensation that was awarded should not be taken into account and the amount of compensation should not be reduced at the head of this damage because of this. It was further argued that there is a procedural agreement according to which the deduction of the NII benefits will be made only in relation to Respondent 3.