Adalah and Addameer demand investigation into the killing of Ahmad Abu Shaaban

Video documenting events shows when the police shot Abu Shaaban to death, he wasn't a danger to anyone.

On 21 January 2016, Adalah together with Addameer-Prisoner Support and Human Rights Organization, sent a letter on behalf of the parents of the late Ahmad Abu Shaaban (22 years old from Jerusalem) to the Ministry of Justice’s Police Investigation Department (PID) (also known as “Mahash”) demanding the opening of a criminal investigation into the killing of their son by the police, and the immediate suspension of the police officers involved.


A video that documents the killing on 14 October 2015 shows that when a police officer shot Shaaban to death, he was not a danger to anyone.  The police claim that Shaaban was shot dead, after he was suspected of stabbing a woman but his family denied these allegations.


Adalah Attorney Nadeem Shehadeh and Addameer Attorney Mohamed Mahmoud wrote in their letter that, “the circumstances of the shooting indicate that that the deceased did not constitute a danger to the lives of the police or other security forces. The fact that the deceased was shot several more times after he lay down on the ground indicates the shooter's intention to kill."


These police actions appear to constitute a serious violation of the rules of engagement, Adalah and Addameer argued. According to police regulations and instructions regarding the use of lethal force, the police may only use lethal force when there is a real danger to a person's life; the danger is immediate; there are no other means to prevent injury; and the damage that may be caused as a result of the shooting is proportionate to the damage that it seeks to prevent.


This “shoot to kill” phenomenon has become alarmingly widespread. The human rights organizations emphasized that: "the circumstances of the killing of the late Abu Shaaban leaves no doubt that the shoot to kill policy against the Arab residents of East Jerusalem has become a norm of behavior typical of security personnel and more commonplace, contrary to all instructions relating to the rules of engagement and the obligation of security personnel to maintain the safety of all citizens and residents."


Read the letter


Read more: