Mangisto and al-Sayed v State of Palestine
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2025 7:25 am
On 23 March 2023, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the Committee) issued the first-ever decision against the State of Palestine of an international human rights body with the competence to hear complaints from individuals. The Mangisto and al-Sayed v the State of Palestine decision pertains to the disappearance of two Israeli nationals in Gaza. Palestine was found responsible for multiple violations of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), despite lacking effective control over the territory where the violations occurred.
This post will question whether this decision is idiosyncratic of the CRPD; and whether another body could have found that Mangisto and al-Sayed were indeed within Palestine’s jurisdiction, and that Palestine was responsible for violations of their human rights. First, I will summarize the findings made by the Committee. As I delve into the details, I will phone number list critically assess whether the CRPD provides a stronger framework than other human rights instruments for safeguarding human rights in conflict-affected States. Then, I will explore whether the Committee addressed the jurisdictional question in ‘its own way’. Lastly, I will reflect upon the dual nature of Palestine’s statehood claim, highlighting how this decision both reveals the fragility of its claim and paradoxically serves as a driving force in affirming its statehood.
The case was submitted by the relatives of Hisham al-Sayed (a national of Israel of Bedouin descent) and Avera Mangisto (a national of Israel of Ethiopian descent), both individuals with diagnosed psychosocial disabilities. They were represented by the International Human Rights Clinic of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which argued that the victims’ psychosocial disabilities led them to cross into the Gaza Strip, ‘a hostile territory’, which subsequently resulted in their enforced disappearance and related violations (para 3.1). Videos published by the military wing of Hamas showed Mangisto and al-Sayed being detained and held incommunicado in the Gaza strip.
This post will question whether this decision is idiosyncratic of the CRPD; and whether another body could have found that Mangisto and al-Sayed were indeed within Palestine’s jurisdiction, and that Palestine was responsible for violations of their human rights. First, I will summarize the findings made by the Committee. As I delve into the details, I will phone number list critically assess whether the CRPD provides a stronger framework than other human rights instruments for safeguarding human rights in conflict-affected States. Then, I will explore whether the Committee addressed the jurisdictional question in ‘its own way’. Lastly, I will reflect upon the dual nature of Palestine’s statehood claim, highlighting how this decision both reveals the fragility of its claim and paradoxically serves as a driving force in affirming its statehood.
The case was submitted by the relatives of Hisham al-Sayed (a national of Israel of Bedouin descent) and Avera Mangisto (a national of Israel of Ethiopian descent), both individuals with diagnosed psychosocial disabilities. They were represented by the International Human Rights Clinic of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which argued that the victims’ psychosocial disabilities led them to cross into the Gaza Strip, ‘a hostile territory’, which subsequently resulted in their enforced disappearance and related violations (para 3.1). Videos published by the military wing of Hamas showed Mangisto and al-Sayed being detained and held incommunicado in the Gaza strip.