1 25 L.S.I. 125. Sec. 5 provides: “Any disagreement between the three authorities shall be referred to the determination of a committee of Ministers whose members shall be the Minister of Religious Affairs, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of the Interior or their representatives. If a Minister appeals against the decision of the committee, the Government shall determine the matter”.

2 Sec. 3 provides:

(a) Each of the undermentioned shall propose candidates for the council, of a number being a percentage of the prescribed number of members, as follows:

(1) the Minister of Religious Affairs — 45%;

(2) the local authority — 45%;

(3) the local rabbinate — 10%.

In determining the number of candidates, a fraction amounting to one half or more shall be deemed to be a whole number.

(b) Where the local authority does not propose its quota of candidates to the Minister of Religious Affairs within thirty days from the day on which his request to do so is sent to it, a further request shall be sent. If the local authority does not respond to the further request within fifteen days from the day on which it is sent, the Minister of Religious Affairs may propose the quota of candidates assigned to the local authority. These provisions shall also apply, mutatis mutandis, to the candidates of the local rabbinate.

3 38 L.S.I. 101.

4 Sec. 4 provides: “The three authorities referred to in section 3 shall express their opinion of the candidates with regard to their fitness to serve as members of the council and to their being properly representative of the bodies and communities (edot) interested in the maintenance of Jewish religious services (hereinafter referred to as “religious services”) in the locality”.

5 Sec. 7 provides: “A council is competent to deal with the provisions of religious services and for that purpose may enter into contracts, hold property on hire or lease and acquire immovable property, all in accordance with the items of its approved budget”.

6 5 L.S.I. 171.

7 S.H. no. 1170, p. 107.

8 Supra n. 3, at 104.

9 P.G. No. 1470, 1946 Supplement No. 2, 163. Regulation 112(1) provides: The High Commissioner shall have power to make an order under his hand (hereinafter in these regulations referred to as “a Deportation Order”) for the deportation of any person from Palestine. A person in respect of whom a Deportation Order has been made shall remain out of Palestine so long as the Order remains in force”.

10 P.G. No. 1602, 1947 Supplement No.2, 1170. Regulation 112(8) provides: “Any advisory committee appointed under the provisions of subregulation (4) of regulation 111 of the principal Regulations may, if so requested to do by any person in respect of whom a deportation order has been made under this regulation, consider and make recommendations to the Government in respect of any such deportation order”.

11 K.A. no. 30, vol. 1, p. 559.

12 Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention state:

31. General rule of interpretation

1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.

2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes:

(a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty;

(b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty.

32. Supplementary means of interpretation

Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31:

(a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or

(b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.

13 Article 4 provides: “Persons protected by the Convention are those who at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals”.

14 Supra n. 12.

15 Abu Awaad v. Commander of the Judea and Samaria Region (1979) 33(iii) P.D. 309; Kawasmeh & others v. Minister of Defence & others (1981) 35(i) P.D. 617.

16 Nazzal & others v. Commander of I.D.F. Forces in the Judea and Samaria Region (1985) 39(iii) P.D. 645.

17 16 L.S.I. 106.

18 37 L.S.I. 87.

19 19 L.S.I. 58. Sec. 23 provides:

(a) A person who is on his deathbed or who in all the circumstances reasonably regards himself as facing death may make an oral will before two witnesses who understand his language.

(b) The testator's directions, with a note of the day and the circumstances in which the will was made, shall be recorded in a memorandum which the two witnesses shall sign and deposit in a District Court; the memorandum shall be made, signed and deposited as soon as practicable.

(c) An oral will becomes void if the testator is still alive on the expiration of one month after the circumstances which warranted its making have changed.

20 Sec. 8 of the Contracts (Remedies for Breach of Contract) Law, 1970 (25 L.S.I. 11) provides: “Rescission of the contract shall be by notice by the injured party, within a reasonable time after he learnt of the breach, to the person in breach;…”

21 33 L.S.I. 44.

22 Sec. 2 of the Contracts (Remedies for Breach of Contract) Law provides: “Where a contract has been broken, the injured party is entitled to claim its enforcement or to rescind the contract,…”

23 “Ata” Textile Company Ltd. v. Yitzhak Zolotolov estate & others (1987) 41(i) P.D. 282. See digest of this case in Hillel, Naomi, “A Digest of Selected Judgments of the Supreme Court of Israel” (1989) 23 Is. L.R. 117, at 119Google Scholar.

24 23 L.S.I. 283. Sec. 8 provides: “An undertaking to effect a transaction in immovable property requires a written document”.

25 Supra n. 24.

26 Zol Bo Limited v. Zayada & others (1983) 37(iv) P.D. 737.

27 These three appeals were decided jointly; they will be referred to as Appeal Nos. 1, 2 &3.

28 Sec. 126 of the Land Law, 1969 (23 L.S.I. 283) provides:

“Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that the owner of any property or the holder of a right in any property has undertaken in writing to effect or to refrain from effecting a transaction in respect thereof, the Registrar shall, on the application of the person who has given the undertaking or the person entitled under the undertaking (such last-mentioned person hereinafter referred to as “the person entitled”), enter a note to such effect. For this purpose, it shall be immaterial whether the undertaking is entered into by an agreement, an irrevocable authorisation or some other document or whether it is explicit or implied, absolute or conditional”.

29 Sec. 132 (a)(2) of the Law provides:

“A note entered under section 126, 128 or 129 shall be struck out by court order or if one of the following has been proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar:

(1) …

(2) the ground for the note has ceased to exist, provided that the Registrar has notified the interested parties, in advance, of his intention to strike out the note and has given them reasonable time to apply to the Court”;

30 (1987) 41(iii) P.D. 96. See digest of this case in Hillel, Naomi, “A Digest of Selected Judgments of the Supreme Court of Israel” (1989) 23 Is.L.R. 506, at 536Google Scholar.

31 23 L.S.I. 277

32 Paka Industries Ltd., v. Rutenberg (1982) 36(iii) P.D. 309.

33 Supra n. 24.

34 Huri & others v. Kna'an & others (1981) 35(iii) P.D. 337.

35 The date of the Land Law coming into effect.

36 (1983) 37 D.M.I. 761. Sec. 235 of the Companies Ordinance [New Version] 1983 provides: “(a) Where the affairs of a company are conducted in a way involving deprivation of part of its members the Court may, on the application of a member, issue directions deemed suitable to it to eliminate the deprivation, including directions according to which the affairs of the company shall be conducted in future or any of its shares be acquired by its members or by the company itself.

37 Military Jurisdiction (Amendment No. 17) Law, 1986, S.H. no. 1183, p. 172.

38 38 L.S.I. 271.

39 See sec. 41(b) of the Courts Law.

40 34 L.S.I. 13. Sec. 10A(a) provides:

A written statement made by a witness out of court shall be admissible as evidence in a criminal proceeding if-

(1) its making has been proved at the trial and

(2) the person who made it is a witness at the trial and the parties have been given an opportunity to examine him and

(3) the testimony, in the opinion of the court, differs from the statement in a material particular or the witness denies the contents of the statement or alleges that he does not remember its contents.

41 36 L.S.I. 35. Secs. 88 & 89 provide: “88. At any stage before the finding, the court may order a separate trial of a particular charge included in the information or of a particular accused charged jointly with others”. “89. Where a separate trial has been ordered, another information shall be filed in respect of the charge or the accused concerned; and the court may, if it is of the opinion that no miscarriage of justice will result, continue the trial in respect of that charge or that accused from the stage which it had reached before the separation”.

42 2 L.S.I. [N.V.] 198. Sec. 4 provides: “In a criminal case, a parent and child shall not be competent to give evidence one against the other and neither shall be compellable to give evidence against a person accused jointly with the other in the same information”.

43 Sec. 5 provides: “The restrictions imposed by sections 3 and 4 shall not apply in criminal proceedings for any bodily injury or violence, including proceedings for an attempt to commit any such offence”.

44 Sec. 6 provides: “If a spouse is called to give evidence in defence of the other spouse or if a parent is called to give evidence in defence of his child or a child in defence of his parent, the evidence so given, whether in examination in chief or in cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution, may be used in proof of the guilt of the accused person”.

45 Supra n. 42.