A/HRC/40/43 incident of stone throwing, the military investigation that was launched after an initial probe found that the erroneous identification of the car was “sincere and reasonable” and that the force had “operated appropriately”. At the same time, the Military Advocate General found that the force had committed professional errors, but that those did not warrant legal action due to the “complex operational environment” in which the soldiers were operating. The lack of prosecution of soldiers who opened fire towards a car full of individuals, including four children, who did not present a threat to life or of serious injury, raises serious concerns about the lack of accountability for conduct that appears to amount to excessive use of force.41 It appears in the decision of the Military Advocate General that the only measure taken in this case was the dismissal of the commander from the Israel Defense Forces. 42 Such a disciplinary sanction is not considered in itself as a sufficient measure of accountability in a case implying excessive use force that resulted in the killing of children. 24. On 16 September 2018, the case of the killing by an Israeli security forces soldier of Bassem Abu Rahma during a peaceful demonstration in Bil’in in April 2009 was closed without the perpetrator being held accountable, despite the availability of reliable additional evidence, including video footage.43 This decision of the High Court of Justice put an end to more than nine years of legal proceedings, involving three petitions to the High Court and two appeals to the Attorney General. In its decision, the High Court recognized that the Military Police and the Military Advocate General had been negligent, had protracted the investigation over a period of years and had made decisions only under pressure from the petitioners to the High Court. It nevertheless rejected the petition against the Attorney General’s decision to close the investigation, declining to intervene in that decision and also noting difficulties linked to the long time that had passed since the incident. This decision was taken despite the High Court having been petitioned three times in the past to ensure accountability in the case.44 This case raises concerns as regards the role of the High Court in overseeing accountability measures against Israeli soldiers involved in the killing of Palestinians. Civil remedies 25. Palestinians residing in Gaza face numerous obstacles that impede or prevent them from pursuing accountability for alleged violations, including seeking civil remedies. Obstacles to access to justice include restrictive legislation on State liability, with wide exemption for the State from liability for “wartime activity”, the statute of limitations, High Court guarantees to be paid and the difficulties residents of Gaza face to enter Israel to attend legal proceedings. 45 In particular, the exclusion of the population of Gaza (as residents of an “enemy territory”) from the scope of Israeli civil liability legislation in October 2014 – with retroactive applicability to July 2014 – has exempted Israel from any liability for wrongful acts committed by the Israel Defense Forces since the 2014 escalation.46 The constitutionality of this exclusion was challenged in Court in a tort lawsuit brought by Al Mezan and Adalah on behalf of Ateyeh Nabaheen, who was shot and 41 42 43 44 45 46 8 See Yaniv Kubovich, “Israeli army closes probe into officer’s ‘errant killing’ of Palestinian teen”, Haaretz (11 June 2018). See www.idf.il/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%AA% D7%99%D7%A7-%D7%97%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7% A1%D7%92%D7%A8/ (in Hebrew). See also Yaniv Kubovich, “Israeli officer opened fire against regulations, killed a Palestinian boy – but won’t be prosecuted”, Haaretz (12 January 2018). Additional forensic evidence and analysis provided by human rights organizations (Yesh Din, B’Tselem, Forensic Architecture and SITU Research) considerably strengthened the evidence against the soldier. See http://archive.forensic-architecture.org/investigations/bassem-abu-rahma/ and www.yesh-din.org/en/petition-prosecute-responsible-killing-bassem-abu-rahmeh/. See www.yesh-din.org/en/petition-prosecute-responsible-killing-bassem-abu-rahmeh/. A/71/364, paras. 40 and 56–57, and A/HRC/37/41, para. 15. A/71/364, paras. 56–57. See Israeli government decree of 26 October 2014 declaring the Gaza strip as “enemy territory”, retroactively from 7 July 2014, hence activating the exemption from damages to “persons who are not citizens or residents of Israel, and are residents of a territory outside Israel that has been declared an ‘enemy territory’ in a governmental decree”.