PCATI Files Petition Demanding Criminal Investigation of Highly Decorated Boarder Patrol Officer for Assassinating Palestinian Civilian in 2001 Date: 04-03-2008
Author: PCATI
PCATI Files Petition Demanding Criminal Investigation of Highly Decorated Boarder Patrol Officer for Assassinating Palestinian Civilian in 2001
 
TODAY, 28 February 2008, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI).( filed a petition to the High Court of Justice against the Judge Advocate General, Brigadier General Avi Mandelblit, demanding an investigation into the killing of Issa Debabseh. Debabseh, a shepherd from South Hebron hills, who was suspected of the 1998 killing of Dov Driban, was killed in 2001 by "IB", a the Border Police officer of Israel's elite counter-terrorism unit the YAMAM  (the unit also functions as a mista’arvim unit that impersonates Palestinian civilians in the course of its operations
 
IB" received Israel's most prestigious military decoration in 2005 the "Medal of Valor." An Israeli newspaper from that time stated that in the year prior to being awarded the medal "IB" and his squad assassinated .25 senior “wanted” persons in the heart of West Bank’s refugee camps.  The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel claims in the petition - filed by attorneys Shlomo Lecker, Shimon Dolan, Michael Sfard and Eliahu Abram – that the evidence collected indicates that the Border Police officers assassinated Debabseh although it was possible to arrest him. The intentional harm and killing of civilians under occupation, as alleged to have occurred in this case, also gives rise to the suspicion that a war crime was committed. The petition further states that the Military Advocate General, is disregarding incriminatory evidence, failing to pursue the truth and engaging in a cover up [and facilitating impunity] of an illegal assassination, and this with the support or involvement of political echelons
 
The events leading to the petition:
 
1.         On 19 April 1998, during an armed attack on Palestinian shepherds, in which guns, clubs and dogs were use against, members of the Debabseh family by settlers from the Ma’on farm, Mussa Debabseh was shot in the chest. In the course of the attack, one of the shepherds, Issa Debabseh, wrested Efraim Perl’s gun from his hands and fatally shot Dov Driban.
2.         On November 1998, two members of the Debabseh family who took part in the event were arrested and charged with manslaughter. Following a plea agreement the military prosecution amended the charges to “endangering the security of the region” and the two received prison sentences of five months. The fact of the plea bargain indicates that the police investigation of the event did not produce substantial incriminatory evidence against the defendants.
3.         In November 2001, four members of the Border Police mista’arvim” unit, dressed as civilians came to Issa Debabseh’s home. They located Issa who was overseeing the digging of a water cistern in his yard. Two of the undercover officers moved him away from a neighbor who was standing close by, while a third shot Issar to death. Following the first shot to the victim's heart, the officer proceeded to "confirm the kill" by firing the remaining rounds of ammunition in his weapon's magazine into the victim. The Border Police officers loaded the corpse onto a vehicle and removed it. Uniformed personnel of an army unit which was positioned at a distance of a few dozen meters from the Debabseh home stood guard while the assassination was carried out. A few hours later the family was informed that Issa’s body was in the DCO (District Coordinating Office) office in Hebron. The body was collected and transported to the Elahli hospital in Hebron and, after the cause of death was determined, it was taken for burial. In addition, the victim's son, Mahmoud, was shot in the leg during the incident, shattering it and necessitating its amputation close to the pelvis.
4.         On September 2002, Issa Debabseh’s brothers, Ahmed and Mohammad, were arrested and charged with the murder of Dov Driban and the attempted murder of Yehoshofat Tor (two of the settlers involved in the initial attack on the Debaseh family). Subsequently an additional two of Issa Debabseh’s brothers were arrested. Ibrahim Debaseh was arrested in 2003 and Mussa Debabseh were arrested in 2004. Charges were brought against them for the same offences.
5.         At the end of Ahmed and Ibrahim Debasesh’s trial, following the arrest of Mussa Debabseh, Attorney Shimon Dolan, formerly and a senior attorney in the State Attorney's Office became aware of the unusual actions of the police, who are supposed to ensure the protection of civilians and the enforcement of the law, joined the defense of the brothers. After the acquittal of Ahmed and Ibrahim  Debabseh, Attorney Dolan worked with Attorney Shlomo Lekcker for the release of Mussa Debabseh, and after the prosecution dropped the charges against Mussa, Attorney Dolan appealed to the Attorney General, the State Attorney, the Judge Advocate General and the head of the Police Investigations Unit demanding an investigation into the assassination of Issa Debabseh and the process under which his brothers Ahmed, Mohammad, Ibrahim and Mussa were brought to trial.
6.         On 23 November 2004, the first appeal was submitted to Attorney General, Meni Mazuz, demanding an investigation into the circumstances of the killing of Issa Debabseh.  The letter to the Attorney General, titled “Targeted assassination instead of arrest, Issa Debabseh”, was ignored. The letter to the Attorney General stated that Issa Debabseh was assassinated although he was unarmed and did not resist arrest and, therefore, could have easily been placed under arrest. The letter further demanded an investigation into the subsequent trials of the Debabseh brothers all of which gives rise to a credible suspicion that the events were not connected to law legitimate law enforcement activity but rather amounted to a revenge spree, which was supported by political and military officials several years after the events at the “Ma’on farm” took place. ”.On 5 June 2005, Attorney Dolan sent a letter to the Attorney General, the State Attorney and the military Advocate General that included a “request to open an investigation into the death of Issa Debabseh and the manner in which investigation and prosecution of the events surrounding the "Ma’on Farm” incident were conducted
7.         The family’s attorneys collected testimonies from eyewitnesses to the event and documented the eyewitness’ accounts in transcripts and affidavits. Their testimonies described a planned and intentional assassination. According to the testimonies, Issa Debabseh was killed in his yard without warning and with no attempt having been made to arrest him. He was not armed – a fact that was not concealed by the military prosecution.
8.         Attorneys Dolan and Lecker met with the Military Advocate General, Brigadier General Avi Mandelblit, and his deputy Major General (reserves), B. Efroni and presented their claims to them. In addition, a lengthy correspondence between the attorneys and the Military Advocate General’s office was conducted during which five eyewitness affidavits that were taken by Attorney Dolan were sent to the Judge Advocate General’s office. For unexplained reasons, investigators at the Military Advocate General’s office refused to collect affidavits from eyewitnesses or to conduct a polygraph test of these witnesses as was suggested by the attorneys.  On 12 February 2006, the military prosecution issued a reply. It stated that the inquiry held revealed that “the force’s action did not give rise to a suspicion that a criminal offence was committed [by the mista’arvim]. Attempts by the petitioners’ attorneys to appeal this decision and to reopen the investigation were similarly rejected.
9.         The petition emphasizes the obligation to carry out an in-depth and independent investigation of the event  - and not to accept a mere internal inquiry into the operation – in order to defend the basic right to life:
 
“It is our view that the respondent’s decision, under the circumstances of effective control and military occupation, was not reasonable, violates the rule of law and in the long run, creates a genuine threat to human life. With this, there is no need in the framework of this case to examine the legality of the policy as a whole. It is our view that in the case at hand orders to open an investigation by an investigative body whether due to the failure of the military inquiry to reveal what happened during the event or whether because of suspicions that were raised independently of the inquiry” are unavoidable."
Back to News List