Presidential Pardons

Types of Requests for Clemency

Any person may apply to the President for clemency by himself/herself or by proxy (through a legal representative or a first-degree relative).

The following types of requests for clemency may be submitted to the president:

• A request for the commutation of any kind of penalty handed down by a court, including the following:
  
  
  • Prison sentences
  • Community service
  • Driving disqualifications
  • Fines, including traffic and administrative fines
    
• Requests to commute life sentences, including requests for additional commutations of life sentences that have already been reduced
• Requests to shorten the period of obsolescence or the period of erasure, including the erasure of traffic records
• Requests for leniency in disciplinary sanctions imposed on licensed professionals (suspension or revocation of license)

According to existing policy, the President considers requests for clemency only after the conclusion of all legal proceedings.

Requests that do not fall within the purview of the President’s authority:

• Requests to erase an internal police record in cases that were closed (for lack of evidence, because the circumstances of the case did not warrant prosecution, or as part of a conditional arrangement)
• Requests to erase a criminal record that has already been erased by force of law
• Requests to erase a record in cases that are awaiting further judicial clarification
• Requests for clemency that are associated with a penalty imposed by a military court on the basis of the Order Regarding Security Provisions [Consolidated Text] (Judea and Samaria, No. 1651), 2009
• Requests for leniency in disciplinary sanctions imposed on those who are not members of licensed professions (for example, disciplinary sanctions imposed on civil servants by a disciplinary court)
• Requests for release from incarceration at the conclusion of two-thirds of a sentence;
• Requests for furloughs for prisoners and requests concerning the conditions of a prisoner’s incarceration;
• Requests for leniency regarding administrative driving disqualifications imposed by the Ministry of Transportation for amassing penalty points for traffic violations;
• Requests for intervention in legal proceedings and complaints against judges.

How to submit a request for a pardon and required documents

In general, requests for clemency must be submitted online click here.

If you cannot submit a request online, however, you may do so in any of the following ways:

1. By email to: Haninot@president.gov.il
2. By fax to 02-5887225
3. By post to 3 Hanasi Street, Jerusalem, 9218801.

• Attorneys may only submit requests online.
• Further material, after a request for a pardon has begun to be processed, may be sent by email to haninot@president.gov.il, stating a name and an ID number.
• Requests for pardons delivered by hand at the entrance to the President’s Residence will not be accepted.
• For further inquiries, please contact the Pardons Department at the Office of the President between 09:00-11:00, Sundays to Thursdays, by phone: 02-6707211.
• Information about the status of a pardon request may be accessed in your MyGov personal area.

In general, requests for pardons will not be considered before all legal proceedings related to the subject of the pardon have been completed.

Requests for pardons must include:

• Personal information (full name, ID number, address, phone number, and email);
• Details: the substance of the request;
• Details about the offense and court decisions;
• Date of the start of the penalty concerning which a pardon is requested (in requests about disqualifications of licenses and imprisonment);
• Explanation of the request, e.g.: circumstances of the offense, special personal and familial circumstances, medical reasons, social reasons, economic status, rehabilitation process, contributions to society (military service, volunteering work, special accomplishments), and new circumstances since the verdict;
• Attorneys submitting requests for clients must attach a power of attorney;
• Individuals submitting requests on behalf of first-degree relatives must declare that the request has been submitted with their knowledge and consent.

Additional supporting documents, e.g.:

• Scan of ID card;
• Copies of the indictment, verdict, sentence, decisions by appeals courts (if there have been any);
• Letters of recommendation (commanders, employers, other) and certificates of excellence or certificates attesting to special achievements or confirmation of volunteering activity;
• Copy of IDF discharge certificate;
• Documents attesting to rehabilitation;
• In cases in which a request is based on economic circumstances, any document corroborating claims in the appended explanation, such as:
  – Pay slips;
  – Recent bank statement;
  – Evidence of income support payments;
  – Evidence of unemployment benefits;
  – Writs of execution;
  – Documents about debts and required payments;
  – Declaration of “limited means” debtor status;
  – Confirmation of receivership.
• Recent bank statement;
• Evidence of income support payments;
• Evidence of unemployment benefits;
• Writs of execution;
• Documents about debts and required payments;
• Declaration of “limited means” debtor status;
• Confirmation of receivership.
• Recent bank statement;
• Evidence of income support payments;
• Evidence of unemployment benefits;
• Writs of execution;
• Documents about debts and required payments;
• Declaration of “limited means” debtor status;
• Confirmation of receivership.
• In cases in which a request is based on social grounds, a written opinion supporting the request, such as:
  – Opinion from a social worker or any other caregiver;
  – Opinion from a psychologist and/or other therapist;
  – Opinion from educators working with children.
• In cases in which a request is based on medical grounds, a written opinion supporting the request, such as:
  – Medical opinions;
  – Relevant and up-to-date medical approvals;
  – Confirmation of disability from the National Insurance Institute;
  – Hospitalization reports.

Special observations regarding each type of request and required documents based on the nature of the specific request:

1. Requests to reduce a prison sentence, including community service:

Required supporting documents:

• Court decisions about the start date of the sentence.
  

2. Requests to commute a life sentence:

Please note:

• Requests for the commutation of a life sentence will be processed no earlier than seven years after the start of the prison sentence;
• Requests to commute a penalty of two or more life sentences will be processed no earlier than fifteen years after the start of the prison sentence;
• Requests to reduce a life sentence that has already been commuted on the recommendation of a special parole committee will be processed no earlier than two years after the committee’s recommendations or the date stipulated by the committee in its decision;
• Repeated applications concerning commutation requests that have been rejected will be processed no sooner than two years after the committee’s recommendation.

Required supporting documentation:

• Court decisions about the start date of the sentence.

3. Requests to commute driving disqualifications:

Please note:

• Requests to commute driving disqualifications apply only to driving disqualifications imposed by a court.

Required supporting documentation:

• In cases involving immediate driving disqualifications: confirmation of deposit of driver’s license;
• In cases in which a court has decided that a driving license need not be deposited, please attach court decisions about the start date of the sentence.

4. Requests to reduce fines, including traffic fines and administrative fines:

• In cases involving immediate driving disqualifications: confirmation of deposit of driver’s license;
• In cases in which a court has decided that a driving license need not be deposited, please attach court decisions about the start date of the sentence.

Requests to reduce fines, including traffic fines and administrative fines:

Please note:

• In general, requests for pardons concerning the reduction of fines collected through the Center for Fines Collection will be processed only if the applicant has submitted a written request to the center to reduce the amount s/he owes and if the last decision made by the center was received less than two years ago, or if the arrangement given to the applicant is still in force;
• As a rule, applicants involved in bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings may submit requests at the end of the proceedings, after exhausting all options with the Center for Fines Collection, as above.

 Required supporting documentation:

• Decision from the Center for Fines Collection concerning a request to reduce fines and arrears payments.

5. Requests to soften obsolescence period or timeframe for erasure of a criminal record, including erasure of traffic records:

Please note:

• Soldiers in mandatory service or in the standing army or recently discharged soldiers (within six months of release) requesting to shorten their obsolescence period or erase their records may speak with the criminal records officer in the IDF or their unit’s welfare/education officer. Contact details for the IDF criminal records officer:

1. Email: rishump.kahar@gmail.com
2. Telephone: 037374580
3. Cell: 054-7191475
4. Further details on the IDF website click here

• Civilian national service volunteers requesting to reduce their obsolescence period or erase their records may submit a request to the Authority for National-Civic Service through their direct coordinators in the institution where they are serving or by means of the public inquiries department at the Authority for National-Civic Service, by phone: 02-5411519.
• Soldiers (not including reservists), veterans discharged soon after submitting a request, or civilian national service volunteers interested in submitting a request independently, and not through the above authorities, must state so explicitly in their request.

6. Requests to reduce disciplinary sanctions imposed on licensed traders (suspension or revocation of licenses):

Please note:

• Requests to reduce disciplinary sanctions will be processed only after the decision concerning the disciplinary measures is final;
• Requests to reduce disciplinary sanctions will be processed no earlier than ten months after the start of the disciplinary action.

Required supporting documentation:

• Copy of disciplinary ruling.

Process for handling requests for pardons

Frequently Asked Questions

How long does it take to process a request?

There is no way of knowing in advance how long it will take to process a request, and processing times change in accordance with the urgency of each request. It is important to emphasize that due to the need to gather necessary information and receive written opinions from the relevant authorities, the processing of a request for clemency, as a rule, takes time. Nevertheless, over the past year, as a consequence of the close cooperation between the Office of the President and the Ministry of Justice, processing times have been cut down significantly.

Do I have to request a pardon through a lawyer?

No. Anyone can write to the President directly or through a first-degree relative.

Can I request a pardon for someone who isn’t a first-degree relative?

No. Anyone may write to the President to request a pardon directly, through a first-degree relative, or through power of attorney. That said, anyone may write to the President to express support for or opposition to the granting of a pardon, and such letters will be considered together with all the materials brought to the attention of the President.

Can I oppose the granting of a pardon?

Anyone may write to the President to express support for or opposition to a request for a pardon, and such letters will be considered together with all the materials brought to the attention of the President.

Can I receive a pardon more than once in my life?

Yes.

Can I appeal the President’s decision?

No. However, you can submit a new request six months after the President makes a decision, or if there is any significant change in the circumstances of your request.

Can I apply to the President before all legal proceedings are over (appeals, retrials)?

According to established policy, as a rule, the President considers requests for clemency only after all legal proceedings have ended.

Can I submit a request to the President to erase closed case files that did not lead to charges?

No. The President’s authority does not apply to such requests. For such cases, please write to the Israel Police, Criminal Information Desk, National Headquarters, 1 Haim Bar Lev Street, 91906.

Phone: 02-5429757, 02-5429672
Fax: 02-5429144
Email: bitul-rishum@police.gov.il

Can a request for clemency be submitted for soldiers convicted in military courts?

Yes. The President’s authority to pardon offenders also applies to convictions in military courts.

Can I submit a clemency request to the President concerning cases heard in the military courts in Judea and Samaria?

No. The President’s authority does not extend to such requests. For such cases, please write to the legal advisor to the region of Judea and Samaria through the Security and Criminal Desk, P.O. Box 5, Beit-El, 90631.

Can I submit a request to the President for early release after the completion of two-thirds of a prison sentence?

Yes. The president also considers requests to reduce the conditions for release from prison determined by a parole board.

Can I submit a request to the President about furloughs for incarcerated inmates, relocating inmates to different prisons, jail conditions, etc.?

No. The President’s authority does not extend to such requests, which must be addressed to the Israel Prison Service.

Victims of Crime

According to art. 20 of the Rights of Victims of Crime Law 5761-2001, victims of sexual or violent offenses who have been informed of a perpetrator’s request to the President for clemency or the commutation of his sentence are entitled to be given an opportunity to express their opinion in writing, through the Pardons Department at the Ministry of Justice, before the President makes a decision in the matter. Victims of crimes also have this right in the case of requests for the commutation of life sentences.

In the case of offenses that caused someone’s death, art. 22 of the law states that these rights are reserved to the family of the victim, based on the following order of precedence: partners (for those who had partners at the time of their death), children, parents, and siblings; in the absence of any of these, any guardian at the time of the victim’s death.

The President gives serious consideration to every such letter from a victim of crime before making a decision concerning a clemency request.

A letter about the President’s decision concerning a clemency request will be sent to the victims of the crimes in question if they have asked to express a position regarding the request.

For more information for victims of crime on the website of the Ministry of Justice, and for the link to submit a request to the State Prosecutor’s support units that maintain contact with victims of crime: https://www.gov.il/he/service/victims-of-crime-application

Legislation on Presidential Pardon Authority

Legislation Concerning the Power to Pardon

• Basic Law: The President of the State
• Criminal Information and Rehabilitation of Offenders Law 5779/2019
• Release on Probation Law, 5761-2001
• Law on Reduction of Disciplinary Sanctions Imposed on [Persons of] Regulated Professions, 5777-2017
• Military Justice Law 5715-1955
• Public Protection from Sex Offenders Law 5766-2006
• Rights of Victims of Crime Law 5751-2001
• Government Law 5761-2001
• Courts Law (Consolidated Text) 5744-1984

Important court rulings about the power to pardon:

1. HCJ 177/50 Reuven v. Chairman and Members of the Legal Council, IsrSC 737 (1951):
   Once the president has granted a pardon to someone convicted under disciplinary law, all disciplinary sanctions taken against that person are canceled (including disbarment).
2. CrimA 185/59 Matana v. Attorney-General, IsrSC 14(2) 970 (1960)
   Since the president does not have the authority to commute a prison sentence to a suspended sentence, a probation period determined by the president cannot be activated (decision overruled in further hearing).
3. FH 13/60 Attorney-General v. Matana, IsrSC 16(1) 430 (1962)
   a further hearing in the Matana case, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decision and ruled that the president possesses the authority to commute a prison sentence with a suspended sentence.
4. HCJ 4/81 Parole Board of the Prison Service Commission v. Dagan, IsrSC 36(1) 439 (1982).
   A prisoner whose jail sentence has been shortened by the president may request a one-third reduction of his new sentence from his parole board.
5. HCJ 428/86 Barzilai v. Government of Israel, IsrSC 40(3) 505 (1986)
   A petition against the pardon granted to the head of the Shin Bet and three agency officials in connection with offenses attributed to them in the case of the “Bus 300” affair. The Supreme Court ruled that the president has the authority to grant a pardon, even before an indictment. Nevertheless, the court emphasized that this was a “rare and extreme” means, to be used only in circumstances in which serious damage was expected in an issue for which there was no other reasonable solution.
6. HCJ 957/89 Tzadik v. Bar Association Central Committee, Isr44(2) 431 (1990)
   A lawyer whose membership of the Israel Bar Association was suspended after his conviction on criminal charges petitioned the court after the president pardoned him. The court emphasized that in accordance with the Criminal Register and Rehabilitation of Offenders Law, 5741-1981, “any faults derivative from a conviction, including a ruling in disciplinary proceedings, are null and void from the day of the erasure [of the criminal record].”
7. In HCJ 399/89 State of Israel v. Zalom, IsrSC 46(2) 187 (1992) 
   The Supreme Court ruled that the possibility that the president might shorten the sentence of someone given multiple life sentences should not affect any decision about the overlapping or cumulative nature of that sentence.
8. HCJ 6177/92 Eisenberg v. Minister of Construction and Housing, IsrSC 47(2) 229 (1993)
   In a ruling against the appointment to a public office of one of the individuals pardoned in the Case 300 affair, the court debated the question of whether the Government may consider the commission of an offense (about which a pardon was given) in deciding whether to appoint someone to a position. The Supreme Court ruled that the granting of a pardon cannot deprive the Government of the right and the obligation to take account of the deeds in respect of which a pardon was granted.
9. HCJ 706/94 Ronen v. Prof. Amnon Rubinstein, Minister of Education and Culture, IsrSC 53(5) 389 (1999).
   A prisoner requested a pardon on the basis of a medical opinion stating that his medical condition was serious and his life was in danger. The president approved the request. It later transpired that the opinion had been forged and its content was false. The Supreme Court ruled that despite the president’s immunity in relation to actions undertaken in connection with his role or powers, the court was nevertheless empowered to examine the legality of the actions themselves and intervene when needed. In this case, it was ruled that when a decision to pardon an offender is based on fraud, which influences the president’s position—that decision must be overturned.
10. HCJ 849/00 Schatz v. Minister of Justice, IsrSC 56(5) 571 (2002)
    A prisoner serving a life sentence appealed the president’s decision to cease observing the custom of commuting life sentences to twenty-four years’ imprisonment. The court rejected the petition and the argument that the custom that had developed in the 1950s required the president to commute life sentences to only twenty-four years’ imprisonment. In any case, the Supreme Court ruled that mere custom could not limit a constitutional power, like the president’s power to shorten sentences.
11. Tel Aviv District Court 2055/05 Rahmian v. State of Israel Ministry of Justice (30 Apr. 2006)
    An individual who had requested a pardon petitioned to receive a copy of the Ministry of Justice’s recommendation to the president. The court ruled, further to the decision rendered on appeal in the case of Ron Spiegel, who submitted a similar request, that the Freedom of Information Law did not extend to internal recommendation letters (section 9(b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Law), and that it concerned information that had been communicated on the condition that it not be divulged (in this case, expert opinions on which the minister of justice’s recommendation was based). The court ruled that the petitioner had not pointed to a genuine interest justifying any deviation from the instructions in the law, and therefore it rejected his petition.
12. HCJ 433/07 Hochberg v. Prison Service (2 Dec, 2007).
    The Supreme Court rejected a petition by a prisoner demanding that the parole board be ordered to recommend to the president to shorten his sentence. The court ruled that a life sentence for murder means life in prison, and a prisoner does not have a right to have his sentence shortened at any point of his choosing.
13. HCJ 9631/07 Katz v. President of the State (14.4.2008)
    A petition against the decision to shorten the sentences of individuals convicted of murdering Danny Katz, a child. The Supreme Court ruled that the president was not answerable to the court in relation to the performance of his functions or powers, including his power to reduce sentences. Although the court was empowered to examine the legality of the president’s decision, its examination of such legality was more limited and circumscribed than in the case of other governmental and administrative bodies.
14. HCJFH 219/09 Minister of Justice v. Zohar, IsrSC 64(2) 421 (29 Nov. 2010)
    A further hearing held at the Supreme Court on the question of whether the minister of justice was entitled to veto the president’s decision to accept a request for a pardon and withhold his countersignature. Whereas in the original hearing, it was ruled that the minister would be acting beyond his authority, in the further hearing, the court reversed its decision and ruled that the earlier decision left absolute authority, exempt from oversight or review, in the hands of the president. The court ruled, therefore, that the minister of justice had the power in exceptional, special, and extraordinary cases to prevent a pardon from being granted.
15. HCJ 10412/07 Najmi v. Special Release Committee (22.3.2010)
    In the case of a prisoner who was given a jail sentence and a consecutive life sentence, the Supreme Court ruled that the start of the sentence needed to determine the point at which the life sentence might be reduced would begin on the last day of the time-limited sentence and the start of the life sentence.
16. HCJ 7523/11 Almagor Organization of Victims of Terrorism v. Prime Minister (17 Oct. 2011)
    In a petition against a decision to release prisoners and detainees in the framework of the agreement to secure the release of soldier Gilad Shalit, the Supreme Court ruled that the president has the authority to grant a pardon of a collective nature, in the framework of a political agreement to release prisoners. The president’s decision is not a comprehensive pardon, but a series of decisions to pardon each prisoner that the state recommended pardoning for the sake of the soldier’s release.
17. HCJ 328/15 Zalom v. Attorney-General (3 Dec. 2015)
    The prisoners released in the deal to free the soldier Gilad Shalit petitioned against their re-incarceration. The letters of commutation signed by the president had included several stipulations, the violation of which would void the pardon. The prisoners were rearrested after it was determined that they had breached the terms stipulated by the president in the letters of commutation, including by reoffending after their release on parole. The parole board therefore decided to return them to prison until the conclusion of their original sentences, which had been interrupted. The court ruled that the president was empowered to condition his decisions regarding pardons on the beneficiaries meeting certain conditions, and that the parole board had no broad discretion in determining the length of the resumed prison sentence. Once the terms were violated, the reduction was voided.
18. HCJ 534/19 Ziada v. State of Israel (20 August 2019)
    Another individual released in the framework of the Shalit deal after receiving a conditional pardon was convicted of committing violent offenses against female relatives, and he was sentenced to a one-year jail sentence. The parole board also ruled that this conviction violated the terms of his pardon and rendered it null and void, and for this reason, the petition was submitted. The Supreme Court accepted the petition and ruled that his release in virtue of the president’s decision requires a focus on the precise terms stipulated in the letter of commutation. In this case, it was ruled that the condition that would nullify the pardon applied only to offenses against state security. Since this was not the sort of offense committed by the petitioner, his petition was granted, and the letter of commutation was not nullified.

Texts on Pardon Authority

The Relationship between the Power to Pardon and the Judicial System

Among the justifications that used to be given for the institution of pardons was the need to soften the severe results of the justice system. In Anglo-American law , for example, pardons were part of the justice system. Until the start of the twentieth century in England, there was no way of appealing court rulings, and the criminal defense system was not yet developed. Pardons were means of correcting such situations. In the United States, for example, until the early twentieth century, pardons were often given on account of doubts about guilt, a lack of sufficient evidence, and mistaken identity. Some of the reasons for granting pardons were later recognized as grounds for legal defense, such as compulsion, insanity, and mental disability. At a time when no distinction was made between manslaughter and premeditated murder, and both were capital crimes, U.S. presidents tended to commute the death sentences of those found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

More on the Power of Clemency and Its Use

The origins of the power of clemency in Israeli law lie in the power of clemency of the English king. This royal power to grant pardons was itself rooted in the king’s power as the “font of justice” to lay down the law, impose criminal responsibility, and hand down punishments. This power was consolidated in the period of the Anglo-Saxon kings of the seventh century CE. The implication of a pardon by the British king was to eliminate any faults attached perpetrators of crimes.