A/HRC/40/43 seriously wounded on 11 November 2014 in Gaza, while on his family’s property, outside the area of any military activity.47 Ateyeh Nabaheen was left quadriplegic and confined to a wheelchair. The District Court of Beersheba issued its decision on 4 November 2018, ruling that the law prohibiting Palestinians living in Gaza from seeking compensation from Israel was constitutional, regardless of the circumstances and the gravity of the injury at stake. This decision is expected to affect the outcome of other cases of Palestinians killed by the Israeli security forces during the 2014 escalation of hostilities still pending before the court, such as the case of the killing of the four boys of the Bakr family (see para. 9 above). 48 Al Mezan and Adalah have indicated that they will appeal the decision to the Israeli Supreme Court.49 Should the decision stand, all Gaza residents would appear to be precluded from seeking redress and remedy in Israeli civil courts, regardless of the circumstances and the severity of the injury or damages claimed. 26. The “enemy territory” exclusion clause is not the only obstacle to obtaining civil remedies. On 3 December 2018, the District Court of Beersheba rejected the lawsuit submitted by Izzeldin Abu El-Eish from Jabaliya, whose three daughters and niece were killed by Israeli security forces during the 2008–2009 escalation of hostilities in Gaza, attributing the responsibility for their deaths to Hamas. The plaintiff, who was seeking recognition by Israel of wrongdoing for the killing of the girls, claimed that there was no fighting in the area at the time of the attack on his home, meaning there was no military purpose for it being targeted. According to the ruling, the home was hit because figures on the roof were suspected of acting as lookouts for terrorist groups and directing fire at Israel Defense Forces, and due to a failure to share information regarding the civilian occupants of the house. The commander of the division testified that if this information had been made available to him, he would not have ordered the shelling. Nevertheless, the court concluded that it had not found any wrongful act and decided to close the case.50 III. Impediments to the work of human rights defenders 27. Measures impeding the work of human rights defenders and civil society actors, particularly in their work in documenting and advocating for accountability for alleged international human rights law and international humanitarian law violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, continued to be of serious concern. The prevailing atmosphere of impunity combined with intimidation, threats and arrests of human rights defenders and civil society actors contributed to a shrinking space for civil society and a lack of deterrence for further violations. 51 A. Intimidation of, restrictions on and threats against civil society actors 28. Restrictions by all duty bearers on the rights of freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association continued. This included, inter alia, intimidation, threats, harassment and movement restrictions, as well as assaults, arbitrary arrests, ill-treatment and prosecutions of individual human rights defenders. The activities of human rights organizations were curtailed by systematic delegitimization likely to affect their funding, denials or restrictions on work permits or visas and the closure of a civil society organization by Israel. 47 48 49 50 51 A/HRC/37/41, para. 16. This would namely pertain to three cases filed by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. See http://mezan.org/en/post/23316. Decision of the District Court CC (Beersheba District Court), Abu El Eish v. Israel, case No. 4077712-10, judgment, 27 November 2018. Available at www.nevo.co.il/psika_html/mechozi/ME-10-1240777-390.htm (in Hebrew). A/HRC/37/41, para. 22 ff., and Human Rights Council resolution 37/37, para. 7. 9