Soldiers and officers at the Girit outpost in the Gaza Strip claim to have received orders that at night, they were always to shoot to kill - even though this violated the official rules of engagement in Gaza, according to a High Court of Justice ruling that ordered the army to open an investigation into the issue.

The decision, issued in response to a petition by the family of Iman al-Hams, a 13-year-old girl who was killed by soldiers at the outpost in October 2004, was handed down a month ago. However, the court published the basis for its decision only yesterday.

	Advertisement

In their ruling, Justices Edmond Levy, Aharon Barak and Salim Joubran noted that the army's official rules of engagement, even in the "special security zones" that surrounded every army outpost, required soldiers to "refrain from harming innocents, with special emphasis on refraining from harming women and children." The rules also stressed that "a person's mere presence within this security zone does not testify to his being dangerous." Finally, they required commanders to give their soldiers clear and detailed information about the rules of engagement, "using explanations and examples," and to "ensure, via checks, that these instructions are clear to, and understood by, all the soldiers."

Nevertheless, during the trial of Captain R. - who was charged with "confirming the kill" of al-Hams but acquitted after key prosecution witnesses admitted to having lied to investigators - several soldiers and officers told the military court that they had received completely different orders. Lieutenant Colonel Ofer, for instance, said bluntly: "At night, it was 'shoot to kill.'"

This testimony, Levy wrote in his decision, indicates that someone gave the battalion orders that differed substantially from the official rules of engagement. And this in turn mandates an investigation by the military advocate general - both to find those responsible and to ensure that such incidents do not recur.

"The facts of this affair left me with a heavy heart, because al-Hams' death could have been prevented had all the parties involved in the affair simply behaved as required," he wrote.

However, while the justices ordered a probe into the question of what orders the soldiers were issued, they rejected the petitioners' second request: that an investigation also be opened into whether these orders were clearly illegal, meaning that the soldiers should simply have disobeyed them.