## Facts

- Following the outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000, Israeli authorities employed a policy of “targeted killings” against members of Palestinian armed organizations operating in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
- The government justified the practice as self-defense in an ongoing armed conflict against organized groups conducting attacks on civilians.
- Petitioners (human-rights organizations and individuals) challenged the practice as “assassination” and extra-judicial execution, asserting that lethal force against persons not posing an immediate danger violated domestic law, international law, and basic moral constraints.
- The court considered data indicating numerous targeted persons were killed in these operations, along with substantial civilian deaths and injuries near the targets.
- Petitioners sought judicial orders to stop the practice, including interim relief; respondents opposed and defended the legality of the operations.
- The court analyzed the practice using Israeli public law methods alongside international humanitarian law (IHL), focusing on rules governing attacks, civilian protection, and accountability.

## Issues

1. Whether the situation between Israel and Palestinian armed groups in the West Bank and Gaza constitutes an armed conflict governed by IHL.
2. How to classify members of Palestinian armed groups under IHL (combatants, civilians, or a third category) and what legal consequences follow.
3. Whether targeted killings are categorically prohibited or categorically permitted under customary international law.
4. If not categorical, what substantive and procedural limits must apply to a targeted killing, including direct participation in hostilities, necessity (capture feasibility), proportionality, verification, and post-operation investigation.

## Decision

- The court held there was a continuing armed conflict in the territories and applied the rules of international armed conflict, including customary IHL.
- The court declined to recognize a distinct customary-law category of “unlawful combatants”; individuals who do not qualify as lawful combatants remain civilians for IHL purposes.
- Civilians who directly participate in hostilities lose protection from attack only “for such time” as they directly participate; outside that window they regain civilian protection.
- The court rejected both blanket illegality and blanket legality: targeted killings may be lawful in some circumstances and unlawful in others, requiring operation-specific analysis.
- The petition was denied to the extent it sought an abstract declaration that the policy as a whole was unlawful; legality depends on facts of each strike.
- The court imposed conditions: reliable verification of the target’s direct participation, preference for less harmful means when feasible (capture over killing), proportionality constraints on incidental civilian harm, and independent post-operation investigation with potential legal consequences, including compensation where appropriate.

## Legal Principles

- IHL’s basic distinction between civilians and combatants governs; absent lawful combatant status, members of armed groups are treated as civilians under IHL.
- A civilian is targetable only while directly participating in hostilities; the loss of protection is temporally limited to “for such time” as participation continues.
- Even where a target is directly participating, lethal force is constrained by necessity; if arrest or capture is feasible under the circumstances, it must be used instead of killing.
- Proportionality applies to each attack; incidental civilian harm must not be excessive relative to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
- Attacks require well-founded, verifiable information establishing the target’s direct participation; intelligence quality and responsible pre-strike review are required.
- Each targeted killing must be followed by an independent, effective investigation to assess compliance with direct-participation, necessity, and proportionality requirements, with judicial scrutiny available for specific operations.

## Conclusion

The court refused to approve or condemn targeted killings as a category, holding instead that their legality turns on case-specific compliance with IHL: only civilians directly participating in hostilities may be attacked, only for the duration of that participation, and only when necessity, proportionality, verification, and independent post-operation accountability requirements are satisfied.


Pub. Comm. Against Torture in Isr. v. Gov’t of Isr., HCJ 769/02 (Isr. 2005)