Caselaw

High Court of Justice 8425/13 Eitan Israeli Immigration Policy et al. v. Government of Israel - part 43

September 22, 2014
Print

The deprivation of a person's liberty is a severe, comprehensive, and wide-ranging violation of all areas of life, and it is what makes it such a central right in any democratic regime.  A person whose liberty is deprived cannot enjoy the many choices that life offers to a free person, including choosing a place of work, maintaining a proper family and social life, consuming culture and leisure, and more.  The infringement of a person's liberty is irreversible, and no amount of monetary compensation can atone for it (see  Civil Appeal Authority 4423/12 Jerais v. State of Israel, [published in Nevo], para. 6 (July 8, 2012); Criminal Appeal 4620/03 Abu Rashid v. State of Israel, [published in Nevo], paragraph 5 (8 September 2003)).  The violation of a person's liberty also means an infringement of his dignity.  "It is difficult to dispute that the very imprisonment of a person behind bars and his subordination to the rules of conduct in prison violates his human dignity" (  Human Rights Division, paragraph 36 of President Beinisch's judgment).  In other words, the right to liberty is also derived from the right to human dignity.  "Human dignity is the value of man, the sanctity of his life, and his being free" (Aharon Barak, Commentary on the Law 421 (Volume Three, Constitutional Interpretation, 1994) (hereinafter: Barak, Constitutional Interpretation)).  In my opinion, the deprivation of a person's liberty also reaches the level of humiliation and humiliation, the prevention of which is at the heart and core of the right to human dignity.  It is important to emphasize that these rights to liberty and human dignity extend to every person in Israel, even if they are not legally residing there.  The rights are given to a person as a person (Kav La'Oved II, paragraph 36 of the judgment of Justice Procaccia; Livnat, at p. 254; AAA 1038/08 State of Israel v. Ga'avitz, [published in Nevo] Comments of President Beinisch (11 August 2009))" (Adam case, paragraph 72 of my judgment).

Previous part1...4243
44...67Next part