High Court approves release to house arrest of teenage Jewish terror suspect

The High Court ordered that an Israeli suspected of being an accomplice in the Duma arson be released to home arrest.

By: World Israel News Staff

The High Court of Justice on Sunday rejected a petition by the state against the release to home arrest of an Israeli minor suspected of being an accomplice in the Duma arson, which claimed the lives of three members of a Palestinian family.

The unnamed defendant, who is now 19, and Amiram Ben Uliel, 23, are charged with membership in a terrorist organization and of planning the July 2015 firebomb attack in the village of Duma near Shechem (Nablus) in Samaria. Ben Uliel is also charged with executing the attack in which three members of the Dawabshe family were burned to death and a fourth suffered severe injuries.

The Central District Court on Thursday ordered that the defendant be released to house arrest. The state petitioned the ruling but it was rejected.

The release comes after two and a half years of arrest, which included intense interrogation by the Shin Bet (Israel’s Security Agency).

The minor is reportedly suffering from poor physical and mental health.

He was released under severe constraints, including a required electronic ankle bracelet, court-approved oversight and a ban on his communications. The execution of the order was withheld until Sunday, allowing the prosecution to appeal.

Read  IDF demolishes the home of child-murdering terrorist

Attorney Zion Amir, who represents the 19-year-old, said Sunday’s ruling was the “correction of an injustice.”

Amir said that after the prolonged period that his client has spent behind bars, “one must be comforted by two things: one being his release from detention, and the other being the court’s ruling regarding the torture that the minor underwent during his interrogations,” Times of Israel reported.

Last month, the court ruled that confessions in the case obtained through the use of “enhanced interrogation” techniques were inadmissible as evidence. However, the court ruled that key confessions repeated later were valid.