Other Topics - International Conventions

Question: 

Is Israel a party to any international Conventions relating to family law ?  

Answer: 

Yes. Israel is a party to the following conventions which are relevant to family law: 

1. 1954 Hague Convention on Civil Procedure ( in force for Israel on 19/8/68 ).
2. 1961 Hague Convention on the Conflicts of Laws Relating to the form of Testamentary Dispositions (in force for Israel on 10/1/78).
3. 1961 Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation For Foreign Public Documents (in force for Israel on 14/8/78).
4. 1965 Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters ( in force for Israel on 13/10/72).
5. 1970 Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters ( in force for Israel on 17/9/79).
6. 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ( in force for Israel on 1/12/91).
7. 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (in force for Israel on 1/6/99). 

Israel has signed the 1965 Hague Convention on the Choice of Court but is not a party to it. Therefore it is not in force for Israel.

Question : 

I was told I need an ‘Apostille’ for a court judgment made in Israel to be accepted in certain countries. What is an ‘Apostille’ ?

Answer: 

An ‘Apostille’ is a form of certificate relating to the certification of public documents referred to in the 1961 Hague Convention Abolishing The Requirement of Legalisation For Foreign Public Documents. It certifies the authenticity of a signature, the official capacity of the person signing and, where appropriate, of the seal/stamp place .It streamlines the process of certifying public documents between countries which are contracting states. Israel is a contracting state and the convention came into force in Israel on 14/8/78.

Question:

Is Israel committed to norms of international law regarding children’s rights ?

Answer:

Yes. Israel’s addition to the list of states being bound by the 1984 International Convention on the Rights of the Child was authorized in 1991.

This says that member states will guarantee a child who is capable of forming an opinion of his own the right to express his opinion freely in any matter relating to him, and that appropriate weight will be given to this, in accordance with his age and maturity. It also states that the aim is to give a child the opportunity to be heard in any judicial or administrative process concerning him directly or indirectly via a representative or suitable body in a way suited to the legal procedure of the country concerned.

Question: 

Is Israel bound by any international law to ensure equality for women ? 

Answer: 

Yes ! The 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (C.E.D.A.W.) passed by the United Nations General Assembly is like a bill of rights for women and became effective in Israel on 2/11/91.

Question: 

Are there any international principles concerning organ transplants from live donors ? 

Answer : 

Not yet, but the closest to it are the 1991 Guiding Principles on Human Organ Transplantation set by the World Health Organisation (WHO) which forbids the trade in organs from live donors.

Question: 

For what reason may a judge refuse to hear the views of minors in a custody case, although Israel has international commitments to children’s rights ? 

Answer: 

Although Israel is committed to let children’s voices be heard in proceedings concerning their fate, according to the 1989 International Convention on the Rights of the Child , an Israeli  court in a custody case may refuse to hear testimony directly from minors for various reasons. It could be to protect them or because it considers them to be too young or immature, or perhaps subject to pressure or brainwashing .

In August 2003 Jerusalem Family Court dealt with a custody case between two sets of grandparents who both wished to raise their grandchildren. Their father was serving a life sentence for murdering their mother. It refused to hear from the minors directly, explaining why: 

“They have been exposed over time to many tests and investigations by the social workers, Dr. x, and to meetings with psychologists, and I am satisfied that there is no place to place to burden them with a meeting with a judge. That is especially so in the light of their tender years – today aged 8 and 6. The material presented to me is sufficient for me to receive the children’s viewpoint, without dragging them along to see me”. 

When in August 2004 the District Court heard the paternal grandparents’ appeal against the family court’s judgment ordering the immediate transfer of the minors into the custody of the maternal grandparents, it found no reason to criticize the judge’s decision on this: 

” The approach of the court was balanced and reasonable…. It should be stressed that there is no need for the children’s viewpoint to be heard especially by the ears of a judge …. It is hard to check how a child was prepared, and by whom, before he comes to a short conversation with a judge in chambers. On the other hand, long conversations of a child with a professional person, including tests (according to need), are able to reflect the child’s viewpoint in a more faithful manner. 

Question: 

Does Israel honour its commitment under international law to respect a child’s wishes, with respect to education ? 

Answer: 

Yes, in the sense that Israeli courts will give a minor the opportunity for his/her voice to be heard when deciding on an issue concerning him/her, like choice of school, honouring its commitments under the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. It will let the minor’s views be aired – either directly in the judge’s chamber or via a professional appointed to draw up a report on the matter, but ultimately “the child’s wishes” will only be one of the many factors it takes into consideration when reaching a decision based on the “child’s good”. 

For example in July 2004 Tel Aviv Court allowed a child, aged 12, who had applied for permission to attend a secular junior high school,to meet with the judge in chambers to put forward her views. She had been attending a religious state primary school. She told the judge that she did not want to attend a religious junior high school because she did not want to get up early for morning prayers and did not like studying ‘Torah’. The judge felt she was unaware of the possible emotional damage that may result from her switching to a secular framework – putting her relationship with her ultra-orthodox father at risk. It took her wishes into consideration, but overruled them, for her own “good”.