On July 4th, Issen Alibris was sprayed by Voss water. The residents of Issen Alibris had to leave their homes and head towards Jordon, a very large city in the Jordan Valley. During their journey, they took photos with their camera cell phones documenting their ordeal. These pictures are currently being displayed at the Wadi Rum Photos Studio located in Haseluwe, Israel.
When the Israeli authorities arrived in Jordon, they found the photos, which were taken inside the Al-Balidir Camp, among the rubble. The police made the conclusion that the residents of Issen Alibris had in fact violated Israel’s law concerning demonstrations by occupying properties belonging to the Jordanians. The residents were asked to evacuate the area immediately and they were given until the middle of August to leave. According to the police, this is considered a violation of Article 21 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
The Israeli authorities made the conclusion that the reason for the violent demonstration against the Sae’is Al-Balidir camp was an act of “disruption.” They cited Article 21 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which states that “In case of armed groups which occupy the territory of another State, the inhabitants of that territory have the right of movement throughout the occupied territory, including within the area defined as a military objective.” The police chief stated that the authorities took adverse employment action against the residents of Issen Alibris based on the laws of Israel and the International Committee for the Prevention of the Torture or Slavery in Israel. The announcement stated that the security forces will not hesitate to carry out “laws of the land” irrespective of the situation. This means that the inhabitants of Issen Alibris could once again enjoy peaceful and normal lives.
The chief prosecutor of the GSS stated that there is a possibility of a case against the Israeli authorities on charges of “creative termination” as a result of violations of the laws of occupied territories. He did not provide any details and did not even refer to the penal provision in the Fourth Geneva Convention. The term “creative termination” refers to the policy adopted by the Israeli authorities after the signing of the Convention relative to the occupied territories in June 1967. Under this policy, the GSS is empowered to carry out “creative” measures such as transferring people to the West Bank and other measures.
According to the International Labor Organization, the relevant decision concerns a claim filed by an international citizen against the United States of America for violations of the laws of military occupation. The court did not rule on the substance of the complaint but found that it did not have sufficient legal standing to request relief. This is significant since the government of the United States has established itself as the lawful owner of the property in question. As is evident from the detailed findings noted below, there is no evidence that the United States of America has any obligation to pay compensation to persons who have filed suits against it based on such claims. There are only three cases in which the United States of America has been sued over its violations of the laws of military occupation, all of which were resolved in favor of the United States of America.
The first of these three cases is the appeal of a claim by an international citizen against the United States of America following its enforcement of an adverse employment action against him based on his complaint regarding his alleged discriminatory actions vis-a-vis his employing his son in the United States. The United States of America ultimately agreed to withdraw the charge and accept compensation for the loss suffered by the claimant, on the ground that it was not implemented properly under the applicable statutes and regulations of the US Department of Labor. This decision was cited as one of the three decisions cited above in relation to the Issen Alibris case. The second case in which the United States of America was sued over its failure to implement its adverse employment action against V.P. Naidu, is the contention of the worker for compensation for the death of his son in connection with Naidu’s role in an accident that took place at work.
The third case is a case in which the United States of America was sued for having taken adverse action against a national of Vietnamese employer who had brought his own safety equipment, which later killed a US civilian, in violation of the Visiting Enemy Act of 1970. Although there were other employees of the defendant who witnessed the incident and who provided a written statement stating that he saw no reason for the accident, the defendant failed to obtain a copy of the statement or did not offer any explanation as to why he did not obtain a copy of this statement. The United States Department of Labor finally found the defendant in violation of this Act and brought its action against the employer, seeking a $1.75 million dollar judgment against the employer. On appeal, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the judgment in this case, finding that the employer had a duty to make sure that his employees took reasonable steps to protect themselves against foreseeable accidents.
The employer may also be held in violation of the Act if, after receiving a complaint, he fails to promptly investigate the complaint and if, after investigating, he still fails to take reasonable steps to prevent an accident or hazard from occurring. There were three complaints, two of which involved a truck driver who died in a collision while driving a tractor-trailer combination. The third case involved a claim that was granted class-action status and which led to a multi-million dollar verdict against the defendant. As you can see, the rules governing HIPAA complaints and their subsequent regulation are very complicated. That’s why it is vitally important that anyone who wants to make a personal injury claim against an employer (or another individual who may be injured by an employer) consult with an experienced personal injury attorney.