Israeli Cop Who Admitted to Urinating on a Palestinian Detainee to Be Prosecuted

High Court orders charges filed against cop, after Justice Ministry decided to close the case despite his admission.

Send in e-mailSend in e-mail
Send in e-mailSend in e-mail
cuffs- Eyal Warshavsky / BauBau- Jul 06, 2005
A man in handcuffs (illustrative photo).Credit: Eyal Warshavsky

The High Court of Justice has ruled that a policeman who allegedly urinated on a Palestinian at the Ma’aleh Adumim police station should be put on trial.

This ruling came in response to the Palestinian’s petition to the court after his case had been closed by the Justice Ministry’s department for the investigation of police officers, despite the offending policeman’s partial admission to the facts.

The Palestinian first complained to the investigation department about serious physical and sexual abuse he had been subjected to while he was detained at the Ma’aleh Adumim police station in 2007. The department examined his complaint and dismissed the case, determining that the evidence would likely not result in a conviction. An appeal to the state prosecutor’s office, examined by the state prosecutor and his deputy, did not lead to an overturning of that decision.

On Tuesday, the High Court made its ruling, in which Justices Salim Joubran, Noam Sohlberg and Isaac Amit determined that most of the evidence had been examined appropriately, but regarding one clause in the plaintiff’s petition the decision to close the case was inappropriate.

“We were convinced that the evidence was thoroughly investigated several times,” wrote the judges, but added that they “ruled in favor of the plaintiff in part, only in relation to one of two policemen who had been accused, and only in relation to the charge that the policeman had deliberately urinated on the plaintiff in order to humiliate him.”

The policeman had consistently denied urinating on the Palestinian throughout his interrogation, but when told that his DNA had been found on the plaintiff’s clothes he admitted that the incident had taken place. The ruling noted that the policeman’s version stated that “after taking the plaintiff to the bathroom, handcuffed and blindfolded, and after the plaintiff had used the bathroom, the policeman asked him to stand by so he could also use the bathroom. He told the plaintiff to bend over and go down on his knees, after which he urinated on him.”

Click the alert icon to follow topics: