## Facts

- Israeli tort law generally subjected the state to ordinary civil liability, with an exception for harm caused during the IDF’s “combatant activities,” historically construed relatively narrowly.
- In 2005, the Knesset enacted Amendment No. 7 to the Torts (State Liability) Law, adding § 5C, which exempted the state from liability for most activity occurring in a declared “conflict zone.”
- The Minister of Defense received authority to designate areas as conflict zones and exercised that authority broadly over areas in the West Bank and Gaza; related amendments also expanded categorical bars and included retroactive features.
- Human-rights organizations and individual Palestinian claimants petitioned the High Court of Justice, arguing the amendments eliminated effective civil remedies for wrongful harm by security forces, including in non-combat contexts.
- The petitions were consolidated with individual matters in which Palestinian estates sought damages for deaths allegedly caused by IDF fire, and the claimants’ access to tort remedies depended on the validity of the immunity provisions.

## Issues

1. Whether § 5C’s broad immunity for state conduct in declared conflict zones unlawfully infringes rights protected by Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, including life, bodily integrity, dignity, property, equality, and access to courts.
2. Whether extending immunity beyond “combatant activities” to most security-force activity within conflict zones satisfies the Basic Law’s limitations clause (proper purpose and proportionality).
3. Whether denying an effective civil remedy to residents of occupied territory is compatible with principles of international humanitarian law and human rights law as relevant to interpreting domestic constitutional norms.

## Decision

- The High Court unanimously held § 5C unconstitutional and invalidated it, including corresponding retroactive immunity features tied to the conflict-zone mechanism.
- The Court rejected a territorial, executive-designation approach that broadly barred suits regardless of whether the alleged harm was connected to combat.
- The Court required case-by-case adjudication to determine whether harm resulted from “combatant activities,” preserving immunity only where the concrete facts meet that standard.
- The petitions were granted, restoring the ability of affected claimants to pursue tort actions subject to the traditional combatant-activity exception.

## Legal Principles

- A legislature may recognize state immunity for harm caused by combatant activities, but a blanket exemption based on geographic “conflict zone” designations that reaches non-combat conduct is unconstitutional.
- Denial of access to judicial remedies for serious infringements of life, bodily integrity, and dignity can constitute a disproportionate violation of rights protected by Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty.
- Proportionality review requires limiting means: state interests in security, administrative feasibility, and protection of public funds do not justify eliminating remedies for non-combat wrongdoing when narrower doctrinal tools can address evidentiary and operational difficulties.
- Executive power to preempt civil litigation through broad, potentially retroactive conflict-zone declarations undermines judicial review and the rule of law.
- International-law norms regarding effective remedies may inform the interpretation of domestic constitutional protections and the permissible scope of rights limitations.

## Conclusion

The High Court invalidated a statutory scheme that insulated the state from tort liability based on sweeping conflict-zone declarations, holding that immunity must remain tied to fact-specific determinations of combatant activity and that broad removal of civil remedies for non-combat harm violates constitutional protections of human dignity and bodily integrity.


Adalah Legal Ctr. for Arab Minority Rights in Israel v. Minister of Def., HCJ 8276/05 (Isr. 2006)