As a result of a petition submitted by ACRI, the majority of decisions taken by parole boards, which decide whether or not to grant a prisoner early release, will be made public. Such action will allow greater transparency of the board’s work, an assessment of the criteria that form the basis of the decision-making process, and public scrutiny of the boards’ actions. The Supreme Court accepted the state’s declarative statement that it will post the majority of the parole boards’ decisions on the Internet, and will place copies of the decisions in prison libraries to enable the prisoners’ to read them. Attorney Yochi Genesin, who represented the state, stated in court that the publication of the decisions would begin in some 3-4 months, after the necessary procedural arrangements have been made.
In response to the declared position of the state, the Supreme Court rejected the petition, while at the same time, President Aharaon Barak (who headed the panel of justices), wrote in his decision that ACRI had achieved most of what it had requested. The only remaining significant point of contention concerned the state’s position, that all decisions should be published without the names of the prisoners and/or professional personnel involved in making recommendations to the board. ACRI Attorney Lila Margalit argued that the names should be made public as they are in all published court rulings, unless special circumstances exist which would not allow for the publication of names, for example, a potential violation of the right to privacy. At the urging of the court, the parties agreed that the head of the deliberating parole board must ask the prisoner at the beginning of the proceedings whether or not he/she agrees that his/her name be made public, and that the name only be made public if they agree.
ACRI’s petition, which was directed against the Ministry of Justice and the Parole Boards (which consider the early release of prisoners usually after they have served two thirds of their prison term), was submitted in 2003 on behalf of a former prisoner, after ACRI agreed to represent him. He had previously submitted a petition by himself to protest the state’s refusal to publish a parole board’s decision, which, the state claimed; it was not obliged to do by law. Attorney Margalit claims in the petition, that the parole boards are quasi-judicial bodies who weigh up and consider different interests, including personal issues that relate to the prisoner him/herself, like their potential for rehabilitation, and any possible danger they may present if they are released, and other issues that relate to the “public interest”, such as the need for deterrents. The parole boards, the petition states, can decide with a flick of a pen the fate of the prisoner standing before it. This fact further underlines the critical need for transparency of the boards actions and decisions. When such an authority is working under a cloak of secrecy, the danger increases that an erroneous decision will be taken. “Thus”, the petition further claims, “the principle of freedom of information acts as a central guarantee for the quality of governmental decisions. Without it, it is difficult, or maybe even impossible, to ensure that that an authority is operating reasonably, proportionately, equitably, without bias, and with the appropriate utilization of judgment”.
last updated : 19/02/06
