This obligation imposed on law enforcement authorities also has a legislative anchor. Section 1(b) of the Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Powers - Arrests), 5756 - 1996, stating that "The arrest and detention of a person shall be in a manner that will ensure maximum protection of human dignity and rights". Section 3 To the Police Ordinance [New Version], 5731 - 1971 states that "The Israel Police will deal with the prevention and detection of offenses, the apprehension of criminals and their prosecution, in the safe custody of prisoners, and in the maintenance of public order and the security of life and property" (Emphasis added) - see S00).
Other Municipality Requests 8650/08 Judge H. Melcer emphasized that "This direct responsibility that the state bears in relation to the person against whom the power of governmental authority is exercised applies both on the legal-public level and on the civil-tort legal level. Preventing Infringement of the Basic Rights of Those in State Custody - And as a rule, the rights to life and the integrity of the body (and soul) - Beyond what is required and required as a result of holding a prisoner in prison, it is not only the prisoner's business, it is the concern of society as a whole, which is committed to the norms of human rights, morality and ethics.".
- The existence of a conceptual duty of care between the state and someone lawfully held in custody by the enforcement authorities is no longer in dispute. However, it is clear that the state should not be held responsible for any damage caused to those held by it. The duty of care and the duty of guard imposed on the state extends only to protection against foreseeable risks. When a detainee or prisoner is harmed, as a result of the criminal conduct of a third party, the state should not be held liable unless the possibility of the harmful event could and should have been foreseen. For example, Other Municipality Requests 3510/99 Velas v. Egged - Cooperative Society for Transportation in Israel, Piskei Din 55(5) 826, 840 (2001), which dealt with Egged's liability for damage caused to the visitor at the station, it was stated:
In summary, when we come to examine the question of imposing liability in torts for the defendant's failure to defend against a criminal act committed by a third party against the plaintiff, we are required to examine the question of the existence of each of the elements of the tort of negligence. At the center of the investigation is the question of the expectation of the criminal event - its nature and scope. This question may arise both at the stage of examining the duty and at the stage of examining the existence of the legal causal connection between the breach of the duty and the harmful result.