Court Ruling Sees IDF Targeted Assassinations As Last Resort

In the High Court of Justice decision on targeted assassinations, the issue of the need for proportionality stands out. This legal requirement means that if the same effect can be achieved, or at least its primary goal, by a less drastic act then the extreme step may not be taken.

In this light, the court ruled that if it is possible to arrest a terrorist who is taking a direct part in an illegal act, and question him and put him on trial, then this should be done instead of a targeted assassination. Former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak, in his 2006 ruling stated: "The arrest, investigation and trial are not always the means to be used. Sometimes this possibility does not exist at all. Sometimes it is dependent on such a great risk to the lives of the soldiers that there is no requirement to do so," wrote Barak.

Nevertheless, Barak noted it was always required to consider the less damaging steps. As to the possibility of injuring civilians, the court ruled: "Proven information is required before a civilian can be classified as someone in the category that justifies harming him. In principle, innocent civilians should not be harmed. Proven information must exist as to the identity and activities of the civilian, who according to the claims has taken part in terrorist activities."

The High Court emphasized that the burden of proof in such cases was on the army and was "weighty." In case of doubt, a meticulous investigation was required before such an attack, ruled the court.

The High Court also stated that even after such an attack on a suspect in terrorism, a thorough investigation must be carried out afterwards as to the accuracy of the identification and the reasons for the attack. Barak also made it clear that such an investigation must be independent and not conducted by members of the defense establishment or any other public authority.

Every case of targeted assassination must be examined for its special considerations, ruled the court, so that such an action is not always banned, and not always permissible. The use of such a drastic step must be proportional and must express a reasonable balance between the military-security benefit and the damage it would cause.

Source: http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1041318.html