By stipulating that "’ a resident of the Zone who intentionally causes the death of a person (…) will be sentenced to death, and to that sentence alone.», This text contravenes numerous international norms and could, in some cases, constitute war crimes. Applied within the framework of the occupied Palestinian territory and a differentiated legal system, described as apartheid, this reform extends beyond the penal sphere, as it stands as an additional instrument of systemic repression serving a regime of domination.
I. The international legal framework applicable to the death penalty
The legal framework surrounding the death penalty in international law reflects a growing trend towards restricting its use. While not formally prohibited in all circumstances, it is now subject to particularly strict conditions, which significantly limit its scope. The interplay between international human rights law (IHRL), international humanitarian law (IHL), and international criminal law thus contributes to tightly regulating recourse to capital punishment, establishing it as an exceptional measure whose legitimacy is increasingly contested.
1. The ICCPR and the abolitionist dynamic
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1966, to which Israel is a party, constitutes the general treaty framework. It also applies, like international human rights law (IHRL) – except where expressly provided otherwise – in situations of armed conflict and therefore during periods of military occupation, as confirmed by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion of 9 July 2004.’The Wall Affair. Article 6 of the Convention enshrines the right to life and only permits the death penalty in exceptional circumstances, for the "most serious crimes." The United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) interprets this concept restrictively, limiting it to crimes involving intentional homicide. Any extension beyond this minimum is deemed incompatible with the Convention. Ratified by Israel on October 3, 1991, and entered into force on January 3, 1992.
UN Human Rights Council, General Comment No. 6, 1982; General Comment No. 36 (2018).
– the requirements of the Covenant, which also makes recourse to the death penalty subject to strict respect for the guarantees of a fair trial.
Furthermore, the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR (1989) enshrines the total abolition and prohibits the reintroduction of the death penalty. Even though Israel is not a party to it, this instrument reflects a fundamental normative shift: capital punishment is becoming a marginalized sanction within the international legal order.
2. International Humanitarian Law: lex specialis in a situation of occupation
In situations of armed conflict and military occupation, IHL constitutes the central normative framework as lex specialis, taking precedence over international human rights law. The Fourth Geneva Convention (Articles 64 to 75) strictly regulates the exercise of the occupying power's criminal powers. Article 68 permits the death penalty only for exceptionally grave offenses—espionage, acts intentionally causing death—and subject to enhanced procedural safeguards. These safeguards are mandatory and non-derogable. However, Israeli law disregards these requirements. There is no justification for an exceptional situation to warrant the widespread use of this penalty, particularly in a context where Israel already commits international crimes on a daily basis.
3. International criminal law and the prohibition of inhuman treatment
The Rome Statute, like the Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals ad hoc For the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the law excludes the death penalty, even for the most serious crimes. This position reflects a consistent legal principle: capital punishment is irreconcilable with the requirements of international human rights law, even in the face of the most serious violations of international law.
Regarding the modalities of implementation, Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions, Article 27 of the Fourth Convention, and the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The ECtHR recognized, in the judgment Soering v. United Kingdom, , that the "« death row phenomenon »"—the prolonged anguish while awaiting execution—can constitute inhuman treatment. The Human Rights Committee also sanctioned the convictions handed down in violation of fundamental procedural guarantees, as well as the inhumane detention conditions in the case" Pratt and Morgan v. Jamaica. .
II. The scope of the Israeli law of March 30, 2026
Analysis of the Israeli law of March 30, 2026, reveals substantial changes to the criminal justice system applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Beyond its formal aspects, this text demonstrates a hardening of the criminal justice regime and a weakening of the fundamental guarantees surrounding the use of the death penalty under international law.
1. An application within an already discriminatory jurisdictional framework
Ratified by Israel on October 3, 1991 and entered into force on January 3, 1992 ECHR, Soering v. United Kingdom, request no. 14038/88, 1989.
UN Human Rights Council, General Comment No. 36.
UN Human Rights Council, Pratt and Morgan v. Jamaica, communications no. 210/1986 and 225/1987, findings of 1989.
– This legal framework primarily targets Palestinians tried by Israeli military courts in the occupied territory. It expressly excludes Israeli nationals – particularly settlers in the West Bank – who fall under the jurisdiction of civilian courts:« a resident of the Aera (…) excluding an Israeli citizen or an Israeli resident »This dual jurisdictional system was described by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its advisory opinion of July 19, 2024, as a sign of a legal regime of racial segregation and apartheid, in violation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The ICJ also declared the military occupation unlawful under international law, thereby rendering the death sentences handed down within that context unlawful.
The functioning of Israeli military courts, which is widely documented, is marked by the use of prolonged administrative detention without charge, restrictions on access to lawyers and case files, extensive use of military secrecy, the practice of confessions obtained under duress, and an extremely high conviction rate, revealing a system in which repressive logic prevails over the impartial establishment of truth.
2. A reversal of the punitive paradigm
The law represents a paradigm shift. Capital punishment is established as the standard sanction, while life imprisonment is relegated to the status of an exception. Such a logic contravenes the principle of individualized sentencing, which requires that the penalty be tailored to the specific circumstances of the offense and the offender's personality, and also neutralizes the judge's discretionary power—two essential pillars of criminal justice. This repressive drift is embraced by the legislature, which invokes a supposed deterrence and retribution as its ultimate goal. By thus instrumentalizing the death penalty for political and security purposes, Israel once again deviates from international standards and represents a major normative regression, running counter to the universal trend toward abolition.
3. An extensive and politicized definition of "terrorism": the risk of application arbitrary
The law follows on from the 2016 legislation, which adopts a broad definition of "terrorism" encompassing acts motivated by political, ideological, or national considerations aimed at the existence of the State of Israel. This vagueness is contrary to the principle of legality of offenses and penalties. By substituting subjective criteria for strictly defined material elements, the text grants excessive leeway in interpretation to judicial authorities, thereby mechanically increasing the risk of the arbitrary application of the death penalty.
4. Implementation methods that violate fundamental rights
The law establishes a range of measures that strip essential procedural safeguards of their substance: drastic reduction of appeals, hindrance to access to a lawyer, limitation of family ties, exclusion of any mechanism of pardon or commutation, and a very short execution period of 90 days (« shall be executed within 90 days of the date it becomes final »These provisions constitute not just a simple criminal procedure, but a discriminatory regime of an institutional nature targeting a population under occupation, characteristic of an apartheid system where the right to kill is exercised in defiance of the most fundamental international obligations.
Ratified on January 3, 1979 by Israel and entered into force on February 2, 1979.
–
III. Violations of international law raised by this law
Analysis of the Israeli law of March 30, 2026, reveals numerous incompatibilities with the requirements of international law. This text exposes substantial violations of the fundamental guarantees surrounding the use of the death penalty, both under international human rights law and international humanitarian law. Through its concrete effects, it directly undermines essential principles relating to the protection of the right to life, equality before the law, and the guarantees owed to protected persons in situations of occupation.
1. Violation of Article 6 of the ICCPR and the right to a fair trial
By expressly prohibiting any commutation or pardon, the law neutralizes the right to clemency guaranteed by Article 6 of the ICCPR. Its illegality rests on two pillars. First, it relies on a broad, vague, and politicized definition of "terrorism," exceeding the restrictive framework of international law, which limits the death penalty to crimes of extreme material gravity. Second, it eliminates essential safeguards for a fair trial (already largely or entirely absent in legal proceedings against Palestinians), particularly the right to appeal against the irreversibility of the sentence. In the absence of these guarantees, the execution of sentences constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life, directly engaging Israel's international responsibility.
This violation is not limited to a formal infringement of the guarantees provided by the ICCPR, but is part of a broader context in which the requirements of a fair trial appear structurally compromised. International law requires that any death sentence be surrounded by strict procedural safeguards, due to its irreversible nature. However, when these safeguards are weakened or violated, the death penalty loses all legitimate legal basis and becomes an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life.
The application of the death penalty in military courts also constitutes a clear violation of the right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by Article 71 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 14 of the ICCPR, and Article 75 of Additional Protocol I (1977). Prolonged detention, restrictions on access to counsel, the use of forced confessions, and exceptionally high conviction rates are incompatible with these requirements., a fortiori when the right to life is at stake.
2. Violation of the principle of non-discrimination and reinforcement of apartheid
By establishing a differentiated regime based on status and national and territorial affiliation, the law disregards Articles 2 and 26 of the ICCPR, which prohibit all discrimination. Combined with the vague definition of «terrorism» and the maintenance of separate jurisdictions, it disproportionately exposes Palestinians to the death penalty. In its advisory opinion of July 19, 2024, the ICJ characterized the legal structure established by Israel as apartheid and racial segregation. Therefore, the introduction of the death penalty constitutes a reinforcement of this systemic discrimination regime, which amounts to a crime against humanity within the meaning of Article 7 of the Rome Statute.
3. Inhumane treatment and violations of the guarantees of protected persons
– The conditions of execution provided for by law – speed of proceedings, restrictions imposed on convicts, limitation of outside contact, particularly with a lawyer and with relatives – are likely to constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of the Convention against Torture and the case law relating to death row phenomenon.
With regard to international humanitarian law, Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention recalls that protected persons "« will not be deprived, under any circumstances or in any way, of the benefit of the this agreement »The occupying power can only exercise its penal authority within strictly defined conditions. When death sentences are handed down by courts lacking the required guarantees of impartiality against a protected population, the violation may reach the threshold of a serious breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention – potentially constituting a war crime, or even a crime against humanity, thus engaging the responsibility of the occupying power.
Conclusion :
The Israeli law of March 30, 2026, is not simply a change in criminal policy. By reintroducing the death penalty into a system marked by occupation, colonization, racial segregation, and apartheid, as well as genocide in Gaza, it violates the fundamental requirements of international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and international criminal law. It is less a response to «terrorism» than an instrument for intensifying the repression of the Palestinian people, reinforcing a regime of institutionalized domination.
–
View the full document