\n
\u00a0<\/span>Three security prisoners filed a motion to the Supreme Court today (January 8) requesting an additional en banc hearing on the Court\u2019s recent ruling to uphold a sweeping ban on correspondence courses for prisoners designated as \u201csecurity\u201d prisoners.<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n The decision to deny security prisoners access to academic studies was taken last June in an effort to pressure Hamas into releasing Gilad Shalit, but the ban continued after Shalit\u2019s release.\u00a0 In 2010, there were 270 prisoners taking correspondence courses at the Open University, of whom 60 were ordinary (criminal) prisoners and the rest were security prisoners.\u00a0 Criminal prisoners are still allowed to take such courses.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n On December 24, 2012, the Supreme Court denied the petitions of three security prisoners to be allowed to continue their studies at the Open University while serving their sentences in prisons in Israel.\u00a0 In a short ruling, the Supreme Court denied the petitions, holding that the distinction between security prisoners and criminal prisoners is acceptable and does not constitute impermissible discrimination.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n In the motion filed today, the petitioners claim that an additional hearing is needed because the Court\u2019s ruling sharply contradicts the the longstanding principle in Israeli case law that prohibits arbitrary discrimination between security prisoners and ordinary criminals, and could be interpreted to allow the worsening of a prisoner\u2019s conditions simply because of his designation as a security prisoner \u2013 even without a relevant security justification.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n The petitioners stressed that leaving the ruling intact could significantly erode basic legal principles relating to prisoners, under which a person\u2019s human rights are not abandoned at the prison gates.\u00a0 Prior Supreme Court decisions held that the violation of a prisoner\u2019s rights is only allowed if it is necessary to maintain public order or prison security.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n The motion for a new hearing was filed on behalf of the three prisoners by Attorney Abeer Baker from the Haifa University Clinic for Prisoners\u2019 Rights and Reentry, Attorney Hassan Jabareen from Adalah, and Attorney Lila Margalit from the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI).<\/span><\/p>\n For more information on the original Supreme Court case, including the pleadings and rulings (in Hebrew), click here<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u00a0Three security prisoners filed a motion to the Supreme Court today (January 8) requesting an additional en banc hearing on … Read more