The Supreme Court published today (Sunday) an unusual announcement according to which the claims about a discussion on changing the opening fire instructions are unfounded and baseless claims.
According to them, in 2018 following violent events that occurred near the perimeter fence on the border of the Gaza Strip, a petition was submitted to the High Court in which it was claimed that the IDF's policy of opening fire, which includes live fire in some cases, is illegal. This petition was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court. In the judgment given, it was stated that the scope of the court's intervention in issues of this kind is limited and extremely narrow, and in any case there is no basis for the claim that the opening fire instructions were changed due to the High Court of Justice ruling.
"The claim that after the hearing at the High Court there was supposedly some kind of discussion on the issue the verdict dealt with, behind the scenes, is also a baseless claim," the High Court says. "The same goes for the absurd attempt to connect the verdict with a visit made after the verdict, on June 7, 2018, by the President of the Supreme Court at the time, Judge Esther Hayut and the Deputy President at the time, Judge Hanan Melcer at the Military Courts Unit in the Kirya.
"During the tour, pending cases or those discussed in the Supreme Court were not discussed, nor was the question of their implementation. As already stated in the IDF spokesman's response from 2018, this is a visit organized at the initiative of Major General Doron Files, president of the Military Court of Appeals, whose purpose is to get to know the judges of the military courts in Judea and Samaria and during which there was also an introductory meeting with the Chief of Staff, with the participation of the Chief Military Attorney."
The High Court of Justice clarifies and emphasizes that "Supreme Court judges discuss the petitions submitted to the court in the courtroom and do not hold meetings with one party or another on matters relating to the petitions in another framework, neither before nor after rendering the verdict."
