Source: http://www.hamoked.org/Document.aspx?dID=Documents1473
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 06:46:03+00:00

Document:
A civilian, resident of the occupied territory, who is not taking part in combat is injured in the course of security forces activity and suffers bodily or property damages. He files a compensation claim against the state with a court in Israel. Israeli statute determines that the state is not civilly liable and is exempt from paying compensation if the damage was incurred in the course of a “wartime action”. In these circumstances, the claim would be rejected, even if the forces acted unlawfully.
The Bani ‘Odeh case concerns an event which occurred in the West Bank village of Tammun in August 1988, during which the military opened fire on Palestinians while attempting to arrest them, killed one and wounded the other. The Nazareth District Court accepted the lawsuits filed by the plaintiffs and awarded them damages. The appeal proceedings in the Supreme Court focused on the question whether the action leading to the injuries was a wartime action – in which case the state is exempt from liability – or rather a policing action, where the exemption does not apply. The court reached the conclusion that the shooting at the appellant was negligent, against protocol and executed whilst the soldiers were at no risk whatsoever. As the appellant was injured during an action aimed at apprehending suspects, rather than battling them, it was a policing action, and therefore, he is entitled to compensation.
Under the law of armed conflict, in a wartime action, injuring a civilian is lawful when it is collateral to an attack on a military target and is not excessive in relation to the direct military advantage expected from the attack. In such a case, the injury to a civilian who had not taken part in hostilities does not give rise to a legal obligation to make reparation. This holds true also where the injury is a result of an error in assessing the expected damage to civilians and insofar as the necessary precautions have been taken. However, conduct which is in breach of the laws of war, such as negligence in taking precautions prior to an attack, does lead to an obligation to make reparation, and all the more so when the issue is a grave breach of the laws of war, such as a deliberate attack on civilians which gives rise to both individual criminal liability and an obligation to make reparation.
Hence, unlawful injury, whether caused in a wartime or policing context, requires compensation. Once the obligation to compensate arises, the question is whether filing a lawsuit is necessarily the adequate mechanism for realizing the victim’s right on the one hand and the state’s obligation on the other. Indeed, in the judgment, then President Barak doubts this, but it is clear that this is not aimed at denying the right to compensation, but at the need to find alternatives for compensation that are “outside classic tort laws”. Barak holds that “wartime action” is not beyond the domains of the law, but that an arrangement of compensation must be sought “which could reflect on the general picture, and distribute the risk in consideration of the special character of the action, and taking into account international agreements which the state has made”.
The author is a lawyer, formerly on staff at HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual. He is currently a PhD candidate at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London.
In his judgment, Judge Gideon Ginat ruled that this was a negligent policing action and not a wartime action; see CC (Naz.) 273/89 Bani ‘Odeh v. State of Israel (1992) judgment of March 10, 1992 (in Hebrew). The state appealed to the Supreme Court against this finding.
The obligation to make reparation under the laws of war pertains to any breach, rather than only “grave breaches”. See The Hague Regulations (1907), Art. 3; Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions (1977), Art. 91; Henckaerts & Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law (ICRC, 2005, reprint 2009), Vol. I, pp. 537-550 on Rule 150. On this obligation in human rights law, see International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (1966), Art. 2; UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31 (2004), Para. 16.
UN International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001); UN General Assembly, Res. 60/147, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (2005).
See above note 2, Protocol I, Art. 51(5)(b).
CA 5964/92 Bani ‘Odeh v. State of Israel (2002), judgment of March 20, 2002, para. 9.

References: v. 
 Art. 3
 Art. 91
 Art. 2
 Art. 51
 v.