A/HRC/44/60 demolish the family home, pursuant to Article 119. The ‘Awwad family rented their home from a relative, Muhammad ‘Awawdeh. Mr. ‘Awawdeh lived with his wife and five children in one apartment, and Ziad ‘Awwad dwelled with his wife, Hanan, and their five children in the second apartment, all on the same floor. Hanan ‘Awwad and Muhammad ‘Awawdeh sought a judicial review of the Commander’s order before the High Court of Justice, arguing that they had been involved neither in the attack, nor in any terror activity. Three Israeli human rights organizations intervened to join their petition against the demolition order. 47. The Israeli High Court in ‘Awawdeh dismissed the petition. In allowing the demolition of the ‘Awwad family’s apartment to proceed, the High Court endorsed its prevailing legal approach towards collective punishment. It reaffirmed its long-standing precedent that the purpose of home demolitions was not to punish, but rather to deter. It also would not question the IDF’s core position regarding deterrence; in its eyes, this was a military judgement, not a judicial consideration. The High Court ruled that the demolition could proceed, even though the purported perpetrators had not yet been found criminally liable; the low standard of administrative evidence employed by the Commander was sufficient to satisfy the Court. The argument that the alleged assailant only rented the dwelling, and the destruction of his apartment would adversely affect the value of the landlord’s property was dismissed. Similarly, the Court stated that the detrimental impact upon the remaining members of the ‘Awwad family – Hanan and her four other children would be left homeless – was an unpersuasive side issue.72 48. Following ‘Awawdeh, HaMoked – an Israeli human rights organization – initiated a legal petition to the High Court, challenging the underlying legal basis punitive home demolitions. They argued that the policy was incompatible with international humanitarian and human rights law, that it may constitute a war crime, and that it also breached the primary rule under Israeli law that individuals should not be punished for acts they did not commit. 49. The High Court disagreed. In its December 2014 ruling in Hamoked,73 it re-affirmed its 35 years of judicial precedents. In doing so, it distinguished between proportionate and disproportionate home demolitions, thereby ignoring the unconditional prohibition against collective punishment. On international law, the Court offered an impoverished and selective reading of its application to the occupied Palestinian territory, holding that Article 119 remains a valid measure in the IDF’s deterrence toolbox and is actually consistent with the occupying power’s duty to maintain public order and safety, as per the Hague Regulations. In its view, the Geneva Conventions were outdated and unable to address the challenges posed by contemporary terrorism.74 Throughout, its reasoning was heavy on security and light on fundamental rights. Michael Sfard has criticized the Court’s position that, because Article 119 pre-dates the Geneva Conventions, it has primacy: From a legal standpoint, this argument is extremely weak: first, international law trumps local law, certainly in a regime of occupation that draws its power from international law; second, the laws of occupation confirm that local laws need not be obeyed if they contradict international law.75 50. In recent years, the High Court has on occasion ruled against the Military Commander’s order for a punitive home demolition, but always on technical or proportionality grounds. It has revoked orders where the assailant had lived in a residence only for a short period, where the Commander sought to destroy a home 11 months after its issuance, where the perpetrator had not lived with his family for three years, where several youths had played only a small role in rock throwing and, most recently, where the harm to innocent families outweighed the deterrence factor.76 Nonetheless, between July 2014 and 72 73 74 75 76 12 Ibid. See paras. 19-28 for the High Court’s legal reasoning. HCJ 8091/14 HaMoked v. Minister of Defense (2014), accessed at: http://www.hamoked.org/files/2014/ 1159007_eng(1).pdf. Ibid, paras. 22-25. M. Sfard, The Wall and the Gate (Metropolitan Books, 2018) 399. HaMoked, supra, note 66.