Background
Shurat HaDin and 31 other petitioners sought an order requiring state authorities to explain why victims of the October 7, 2023 attacks and their families were not receiving the full rights afforded to crime victims under Israel’s Rights of Victims of Crime Law, 2001. They also sought access to information and involvement in proceedings concerning the detention, imprisonment, or release of people allegedly involved in harming them, including detainees held under the Incarceration of Unlawful Combatants Law, 2002.
The state argued that the victims were receiving all rights legally available to them, but that the Rights of Victims of Crime Law did not apply to proceedings involving people detained under the unlawful-combatants statute. It also maintained that investigative-file information generally could not be disclosed before an investigation ended to a person who was not a defendant, although the military and police were providing victims and their families with information where possible, subject to security, technological, and investigative constraints.
While the petition was pending, the Knesset enacted the Prosecution for the Events of the October 7, 2023 Massacre (Shemini Atzeret Massacre) Law, 2026. The new law applies the Rights of Victims of Crime Law, with necessary modifications, to prosecutions under the new statutory scheme; establishes a mechanism for implementing victims’ rights; and permits victims to attend or view proceedings and express their position on issues concerning publication and documentation. The state therefore sought removal of the petition, while the petitioners argued that the new law principally addressed rights during proceedings before the special military court rather than the earlier stages at issue in their petition.
The Court’s Holding
The Court removed the petition because enactment of the 2026 law had materially changed the factual and, especially, the legal foundation on which the petition had been filed. The legislature had directly addressed the subject of victims’ rights in the anticipated October 7 prosecutions and had created a new framework that primarily operates after an indictment is filed and during the criminal proceedings.
The Court did not decide whether the new statute’s treatment of pre-indictment rights was exclusive or whether victims could still claim additional rights under the general Rights of Victims of Crime Law. It reasoned that those arguments required interpretation of legislation enacted after the petition was filed and therefore were not encompassed by the petition as framed.
Emphasizing that the victims’ desire for information and involvement was understandable, the Court nevertheless concluded that the petition could not remain pending in its existing form. It removed the petition without an award of costs and expressly preserved the petitioners’ arguments for possible future proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A petition may be removed when intervening legislation materially changes the factual or legal basis on which it was filed.
- The 2026 prosecution law gives qualifying victims rights in proceedings brought under that law, including attendance or viewing rights and the right to express their position on publication and documentation issues.
- The Court left unresolved whether victims possess additional pre-indictment rights under the general victims’ rights statute; that question may be raised in a future proceeding addressing the new law.
Why It Matters
The ruling does not resolve the substantive scope of October 7 victims’ rights before indictment or in matters involving detainees held as unlawful combatants. Instead, it requires any renewed challenge to address the statutory framework enacted while this case was pending.
For practitioners, the decision underscores that courts may decline to adjudicate claims framed under an earlier legal regime when new legislation directly regulates the controversy, while preserving the parties’ ability to challenge or seek interpretation of the new regime in a properly framed case.