CCPR/C/120/D/2285/2013
neighbourhood to be halted. The Israeli Civil Administration launched a replanning process,
as a result of which new building permits were issued that were in conformity with the
actual construction that had already begun. The petition was thus dismissed.
2.7
A third petition, against the new planning process, was dismissed on 5 September
2007. A fourth petition was filed in an attempt to repeal retroactively the 1991 declaration
of part of Bil’in’s land as “State land”. The petition was dismissed on 9 November 2006.
Despite the fact that during the litigation of the first petition the authors learned that the
land declaration was based on false purchase claims — a fact that was concealed from them
at the time of declaration — the Court held that although the authors’ claims might be
justified, the matter could not be adjudicated so many years after the declaration.
2.8
Following the legal actions taken in Israel, the authors sought to hold Green Park
International and Green Mount International accountable for their actions on Bil’in lands
and sought remedies before the Canadian judicial system. In formulating their complaints
the authors relied on international law and claimed violations related to freedom of
movement and denial of access to, use of and control over land that was used historically
for livelihood purposes. They also claimed accountability by the two corporations for
aiding and abetting in the commission of the war crime of transferring, directly or indirectly,
the population of the occupying Power to the occupied territories.
2.9
Thus, in July 2008, a civil action was filed before the Superior Court of Quebec by
the Bil’in Village Council and Ahmed Issa Abdallah Yassin. 2 On 18 September 2009, the
Court dismissed the case, declining jurisdiction on account of forum non conveniens. In
October 2009, the authors appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal, which confirmed the
Superior Court’s decision on 11 August 2010. On 6 October 2010, the authors filed an
application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which was dismissed on 3
March 2011. The Supreme Court’s dismissal was consistent with its previous decision not
to review the case of Canadian Association Against Impunity v. Anvil Mining Ltd., in which
the Quebec Court of Appeal held that Canadian courts lacked jurisdiction over actions by
Canadian corporations acting abroad. Plaintiffs in that case sought to hold Anvil Mining
Ltd., a corporation incorporated in Quebec, accountable for complicity in massacres carried
out in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Court of Appeal held that Canadian
courts lacked jurisdiction when there is no link to activities that occurred within Canadian
territory.
The complaint
3.1
The authors claim to be victims of violation of their rights under article 12 of the
Covenant. Since 1996, military orders issued by the Israeli military commander of the
occupied West Bank have prohibited entry of Palestinians into settlement areas and
instituted a permit regime for Palestinians who work in settlements. In 2002, the
commander issued an order prohibiting Palestinians from entering the settlement of
Modi’in Illit without a permit. The movement restrictions were enforced when the two
Canadian corporations began construction.
3.2
The freedom of movement of the authors has been violated because they can no
longer access their lands, which they used for generations for agriculture, grazing and other
livelihood purposes, because of the unlawful settlements constructed by the two
corporations. Consequently, Canada violated its extraterritorial obligation to ensure respect
for article 12 (1) of the Covenant by failing to provide the authors with effective remedies
in holding the two corporations accountable for the violation and by failing to adequately
regulate the corporations to ensure that their activities did not violate the Covenant.
3.3
The authors also claim to be victims of violations of articles 17 and 7. The
settlement of Modi’in Illit resulted in their forced eviction from land which is closely tied to
housing and integral to the functioning of each household, and should thus fall within the
scope of the definition of “home”. The authors, like Palestinian villagers generally, consider
2
GE.17-21900
After Mr. Yassin’s death in 2009, his heirs continued the suit on his behalf and were added to the
action as “plaintiffs in continuance of suit”. Most of those heirs are authors in the present
communication.
3