104 Israeli Land Grab and Forced Population Transfer of Palestinians from carrying out their… acts.”364 However, 79 percent of the suspected offenders were either dead or in detention at the time of the demolition.365 In 2003, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of clarity when issuing punitive demolitions: “the notice [prior to the demolition] did not mention that the decision was made pursuant to Section 119... It states that the Military Commander decided to demolish the house pursuant to his authority. Only on the Court’s request, was a clarification provided by the State that the demolition had been ordered on the ground of 119 Defense (Emergency) Regulations”.366 In practice, the criteria for issuing a home demolition continues to be opaque and inconsistent. Appealing ‘deterrent’ demolitions No prerequisite of conviction is necessary when an Israeli Military Commander issues a deterrent demolition order and the commander is encouraged to issue the order from a source of suspicion. Since the Military Commander has absolute discretion in issuing an order, there are no procedural rules providing for judicial review and no formal appeals process. In August 2002, the Supreme Court disputed the right to judicial review in the Amar Case367 by stating that when it comes to punitive demolitions, judicial review is “incompatible with the conditions of place and time or the nature of the circumstances.”368 The only option for appealing a punitive demolition is through the Supreme Court. More than 150 petitions against punitive demolitions have been judged in Israeli courts. Petitioners raised arguments contesting the legality of the measure, the manner in which it was implemented and its use in specific circumstances. In all but the most exceptional cases, the Supreme Court denied the petitions and accepted the State’s position that demolitions for the purpose of deterring attacks is lawful and proper punishment.369 The Supreme Court has rejected the argument that the measure constitutes collective punishment.370 364 Nazal v. Commander of the Judea and Samaria Region, 42(3) P.D. 641 (1994), summarized in English in 19 Israel Yearbook of Human Rights 376 (1989) taken from: Harvard Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, ‘The Legality of House Demolitions Under International Humanitarian Law’, 2004; available from http://www.hamoked.org/Document.aspx?dID=3553; accessed 2 May 2013. 365 Jeff Halper, ‘House Demolitions and Israel’s Policy of Hafrada’. 366 B’Tselem, ‘Through No Fault of Their Own: Punitive House Demolitions During the al-Aqsa Intifada’, 54. 367 Nahil Adal Sa’ado Amar V. The IDF West Bank Military Commander (HCJ 2002). 368 Nahil Adal Sa’ado Amar v. The IDF West Bank Military Commander, HCJ 6696/02, Supreme Court of Israel, Judgment of 6 August 2002. Published in 56(3) P.D. 110. See: Al-Haq, ‘Israel’s Punitive House Demolition Policy’. 369 Janimat Et Al. V. OC Central Command Judgment (HCJ 1997). 370 B’Tselem, ‘Punitive House Demolitions from the Perspective of International Law’.