How the Knesset Votes
English

Private member's bill · 20th Knesset · published as law 1 February 2017

חוק לתיקון פקודת הראיות (מס' 18), התשע"ז-2017Law to Amend the Evidence Ordinance (No. 18), 2017 · automatic translation · suggest a correction

Status: התקבלה בקריאה שלישית

Topics: Courts and criminal law* · * from the Knesset's official law classification

Official summary of the law (Knesset)

The Law for Amendment of the Evidence Ordinance (No. 18), 2017 regulates the status of criminal judgments issued by the courts in Judea and Samaria and determines that the findings and conclusions of a military court judgment shall be admissible as evidence in civil proceedings.

automatic translation · suggest a correction

Hebrew original

החוק לתיקון פקודת הראיות (מס' 18), התשע"ז-2017 מסדיר את מעמדם של פסקי הדין הפליליים הניתנים בערכאות השיפוט ביהודה ושומרון וקובע כי הממצאים והמסקנות של פסק דין של בית משפט צבאי יהיו קבילים כראיה במשפט האזרחי.

Sponsors

Anat Berko

Readings

What was said in the plenum

The bill seeks to amend the Evidence Ordinance so that a final conviction by a military court in Judea and Samaria would be admissible as prima facie evidence in a civil proceeding in Israel, similar to a criminal conviction by an Israeli court, in order to ease the process for terror victims and their families in compensation claims. The debate focused on whether this is a justified legal-humanitarian step or a political step that, according to opponents, promotes de facto annexation of the territories and improperly recognizes a court previously defined as 'foreign' by the Attorney General.

automatic translation · suggest a correction

Hebrew original

הצעת החוק מבקשת לתקן את פקודת הראיות כך שפסק-דין חלוט מרשיע של בית-משפט צבאי ביהודה ושומרון יהיה קביל כראיה לכאורה בהליך אזרחי בישראל, בדומה לפסק-דין פלילי של בית-משפט ישראלי, זאת כדי להקל על נפגעי טרור ומשפחותיהם בתביעות פיצויים. הדיון התמקד בשאלה אם מדובר בצעד משפטי-הומניטרי מוצדק או בצעד פוליטי המקדם, לטענת המתנגדים, סיפוח דה-פקטו של השטחים ומכיר באופן לא ראוי בערכאה שהוגדרה בעבר כ'זרה' על-ידי היועץ המשפטי לממשלה.

Arguments for

  • The law will spare terror victims' families the need to re-litigate the entire criminal proceeding in civil court and will ease and expedite the receipt of compensation.
    Anat Berko (Likud), שרת המשפטים איילת שקד, Uri Maklev (United Torah Judaism), Yuval Steinitz (Likud)
  • The military courts in Judea and Samaria are a professional, independent and serious judicial body, with professional judges, an appellate instance and even a juvenile court, and they operate according to rules of evidence and procedure similar to those in Israel.
    Anat Berko (Likud), שרת המשפטים איילת שקד, Uri Maklev (United Torah Judaism), Yuval Steinitz (Likud)
  • The law does not change the status of the territories or of the military courts and does not constitute annexation, but rather a limited recognition of judicial outputs only, in line with the global trend of sharing legal information.
    Anat Berko (Likud), Uri Maklev (United Torah Judaism), Yuval Steinitz (Likud)
  • The current situation creates inequality among terror victims, depending on whether a similar case was tried in a civil or military court, and causes unjustified delay of justice for victims' families.
    Anat Berko (Likud), Yuval Steinitz (Likud)

Arguments against

  • According to the position of the Attorney General, the military courts are a separate and foreign legal system that does not derive its authority from Israeli law and is not authorized to adjudicate in Israel, and therefore its rulings cannot serve as prima facie evidence in an Israeli civil proceeding under the existing law.
    Osama Saadi (Joint List)
  • The law is part of a trend of creeping annexation of the occupied territories, which blurs the distinction between the Israeli legal system and the military legal system in the area and perpetuates the occupation.
    Abdullah Abu Maaruf (Joint List), Jamal Zahalka (Joint List), Dov Khenin (Joint List), Zouheir Bahloul (Zionist Union), Yoel Hasson (Zionist Union)
  • The military courts do not conduct fair proceedings, do not protect defendants' rights, and are not independent or objective, and therefore their rulings should not be recognized as evidence.
    Yousef Jabareen (Joint List)
  • The law is unconstitutional and will not withstand scrutiny by the Supreme Court.
    Osama Saadi (Joint List), Yousef Jabareen (Joint List)
  • It would be better to legislate annexation or a structured political policy openly and declaratively, rather than implementing it indirectly and covertly through partial legislative amendments.
    Jamal Zahalka (Joint List), Yoel Hasson (Zionist Union)
Who spoke (21)
MemberFactionReadingsSpeechesIn the final vote
Anat BerkoLikud coalitionFirst reading, Third reading4for
שרת המשפטים איילת שקד—First reading2—
Osama SaadiJoint List oppositionFirst reading, Third reading6against
Abdullah Abu MaarufJoint List oppositionFirst reading2against
Ahmad TibiJoint List oppositionFirst reading2against
Jamal ZahalkaJoint List oppositionFirst reading1no record
Erel MargalitZionist Union oppositionFirst reading2no record
Dov KheninJoint List oppositionFirst reading, Third reading2against
Stav ShaffirZionist Union oppositionFirst reading1against
Zouheir BahloulZionist Union oppositionFirst reading, Third reading5against
Yousef JabareenJoint List oppositionFirst reading, Third reading7against
Oren Asaf HazanLikud coalitionFirst reading4no record
Eyal Ben ReuvenZionist Union oppositionFirst reading2against
Uri MaklevUnited Torah Judaism coalitionThird reading1for
Esawi FrejMeretz oppositionThird reading5against
Yoel HassonZionist Union oppositionThird reading6against
Amir OhanaLikud coalitionThird reading1for
Ayelet Nahmias-VerbinZionist Union oppositionThird reading2against
Abd Al Hakeem Haj YahyaJoint List oppositionThird reading2no record
Yoseph YonahZionist Union oppositionThird reading5against
Yuval SteinitzLikud coalitionThird reading6for

An automatic summary of the plenum transcripts: the debate on the bill at every reading it was voted on. Arguments are given as the speakers made them; this is not an assessment. The list of speakers comes from the transcript, without a model. Transcripts of the sittings: 1, 2, 3

Reservations to the second reading

3 reservations were filed: proposed changes to the text the committee brought to the second and third reading.

The reservations to Section 1 seek to change the wording of the section by deleting and adding words relating to the law's scope of application and the definition of criminal proceedings.

automatic translation · suggest a correction

Hebrew original

ההסתייגויות לסעיף 1 מבקשות לשנות את נוסח הסעיף באמצעות מחיקת והוספת מילים הנוגעות לתחולת החוק והגדרת ההליך הפלילי.

By faction

  • Zionist Union opposition · 3 reservations · 24 members
  • Joint List opposition · 3 reservations · 13 members
  • Meretz opposition · 3 reservations · 5 members

A joint reservation counts for every faction whose members filed it.

Who proposed what

Asked to speak: Yael German (Yesh Atid), Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid), Meir Cohen (Yesh Atid), Yaakov Perry (Yesh Atid), Ofer Shelah (Yesh Atid), Haim Jelin (Yesh Atid), Karine Elharrar (Yesh Atid), Yoel Razvozov (Yesh Atid), Aliza Lavie (Yesh Atid), Mickey Levy (Yesh Atid), Elazar Stern (Yesh Atid)

Proposers and reservation numbers are extracted automatically from the committee version, and the count is checked against the numbers printed in it. The descriptions are an automatic summary. Committee version for the second and third reading (PDF)

Reservations, sections and other votes (4)

In order. Votes on reservations and individual sections are shown separately from the vote on the bill as a whole.

Source: bill page in the Knesset legislation database ↗