Adalah Petitions Israel's High Court to Return Bodies of Six Arab Citizens

The petition was filed by Adalah attorney Salam Irsheid on behalf of first-degree relatives of the deceased. It seeks to compel the release of the bodies for burial in accordance with the families' religious beliefs. Adalah stated that the state's continued withholding of the bodies is unlawful, disproportionate, and lacks authority.

The group highlighted that the bodies have been held for prolonged periods despite repeated family requests.

The petition challenges the state's position that withholding bodies serves as leverage in negotiations over Israeli captives. Adalah argued that this rationale no longer applies due to a change in circumstances following the implementation of a deal between Israel and Hamas.

“The purpose that formed the basis for the decision to hold the bodies no longer exists,” the petition states, noting that cabinet decisions supporting the policy are no longer relevant. The six cases involve Israeli citizens killed during confrontations with Israeli forces or under other circumstances, with bodies withheld for several years.

described the withholding as a constitutional violation, stating that the right to a dignified burial is part of the constitutional right to human dignity under Israeli law. The petition asserts that the practice severely and continuously violates the dignity of the deceased and their families.

It fails to meet standards of legality and proportionality, according to Adalah. The group also cited inconsistencies in the state's conduct, including instances where bodies were returned under specific conditions. Adalah further stated that the withholding may constitute inhuman or degrading treatment, referencing Israeli constitutional principles and international legal standards.

petitions by families were rejected based on the state's argument that the policy could aid in securing the return of Israeli hostages and missing persons. The current petition notes that those rulings depended on a factual and strategic context that has since changed.

The case is part of a renewed wave of related petitions before the High Court, reflecting ongoing legal efforts to address the policy amid evolving circumstances and public scrutiny.