The Supreme Court (Judge Yitzhak Amit, with the concurrence of Justices Ofer Grosskopf and Alex Stein) rejected the Alkian family's petition to intervene in the State Attorney's decision, which ruled that a criminal investigation should not be opened against the police involved in the so-called Umm al-Hiran affair.
On the night of January 18, 2017, large police forces arrived in the unrecognized village of Umm al-Hiran, to carry out demolition orders issued for buildings in the area. Police forces encountered resistance on arrival at the scene, and on arriving at the home of Yaakov Alkian (hereinafter: the deceased) who was destined for demolition, police officers noticed the deceased’s vehicle as he was driving, his headlights off and his windows closed. The policemen called for the engine to shut down, but Hela turned on the headlights and began a slow drive down the access path to the house, passing the policemen and not an hour before calling for them to stop. One of the policemen felt in danger for his life and the lives of other policemen who were standing on the side of the path, and he said he opened fire at the wheels of the vehicle. The vehicle continued to drive, and another police officer fired at the vehicle's wheels. Then the vehicle began to accelerate, and at one point deviated sharply to the right and hit the policemen who were standing there. One policeman, the late Corporal Erez Shaul Levy Amadi, was killed, and two other policemen were injured. At this point more police officers fired at the vehicle, the vehicle slowed down and was finally stopped after a police vehicle struck it.Later, the deceased was taken out of the vehicle and lay on the ground motionless. In retrospect, according to the opinion of the Institute of Forensic Medicine, it turns out that the deceased, who did not receive medical treatment at the scene, was injured in his back and right knee, and died as a result of blood loss apparently within tens of minutes of the injury.
Shortly after the events, and even before the investigation of the elements in the field was completed, the deceased was accused of committing an act of terrorism by senior public figures. Even today, however, the cause of the vehicle's acceleration remains unknown, and the cloud of ambiguity regarding the circumstances of the incident has not dissipated.
The incident will be investigated in various aspects by the GSS, the Department of Police Investigations (hereinafter: DIP) and the Israel Police. Eventually, after examining the test findings and the evidence gathered, the then state attorney decided that there was no room to open a criminal investigation against the police officers involved. The State Attorney's conclusion was that the evidentiary infrastructure was insufficient for the purpose of opening an investigation; That the evidence found at the scene supports, and unfortunately does not negate, the chain of events as described by the police officers involved; That the version of the policemen who carried out the initial shooting, according to which they felt a clear danger, is a reasonable version; And that even if a criminal investigation is opened, it is not expected to increase the volume of evidentiary infrastructure and establish a reasonable chance of conviction in relation to the incident, both regarding the execution of the shooting and regarding the issue of not providing medical treatment to the deceased.
The Supreme Court has ruled that this decision of the State Attorney should not be interfered with. The court held that the DIP investigation was comprehensive and in-depth, and that the State Attorney's decision was made after a thorough examination of the extensive evidence gathered, which included: collecting messages from police officers and medical personnel who were at the scene; intelligence material; ballistic opinion; Road accidents; Opinions of the National Center for Forensic Medicine and the Biological Laboratory; Analysis of videos from the course of the incident by experts in the field of digital evidence; and collection of forensic documents from the scene, videos and recordings from the network. Given the flaws in some of the officers' versions, the conclusion is that it is not possible to conclusively determine the exact circumstances that existed in those seconds of commotion and pressure, how exactly the shooting took place, and whether the vehicle was controlled by the deceased at the time he deviated and hit the officers.The court added that the activity in the arena was of an operational nature and took place in darkness, high intensity and stressful conditions, and that the actions of the police and medical personnel present at the scene should be examined against these special conditions and the chaos that prevailed (so one of the policemen opened fire on a police vehicle).
In summary, and in light of the extensive case law on the subject, the court ruled that the exceptional conditions that justify intervention in the State Attorney's decision are not met. The court clarified that its ruling was limited to the question of whether it was appropriate to open a criminal investigation, and does not express a position on the systemic and operational deficiencies that occurred in this difficult case, whose dismal results include a police officer and a civilian killed and several injured. In this regard, the court expressed its hope that the police investigation carried out following the incident met the required standards. As for the petitioners' request to positively determine that this is not an intentional act of trampling, it was determined that for the purpose of the question of whether there was room to open a criminal investigation against the police officers involved, a decision on this point is not required. However, Justice Amit noted that an indication that we are not dealing with a car bomb attack can be found in the fact that the GSS stopped dealing with the issue on the day of the incident.
Judge Grosskopf added that if we had been in close proximity to the day of the incident, he would not have had difficulty in concluding that the incident should be investigated, it would have been sufficient to investigate.
However, given that DIP conducted a comprehensive investigative investigation during the months following the incident, on the basis of which the State Attorney's decision was made; In the interrogation, then, there is no individual or principled reason to accept the petition. Criminal - Yaakov Alkian was and remains innocent.
