This article examines the 2019 decision by the Supreme Court of Israel (the Court) in the Namnam case, upholding a ban on family visits to Gaza prisoners incarcerated in Israel and affiliated with Hamas.1 This ban was adopted as part of Israel's attempt to pressure Hamas into an exchange of Palestinian detainees and prisoners against missing Israeli civilians and the bodies of Israeli soldiers, apparently being held by Hamas in Gaza. The Court examined the measure primarily in light of Israeli administrative law, and held that it had no grounds to intervene. It held that an analysis under international law would have yielded the same result.This article examines the decision of the Court in light of the applicable international law. It considers the Court's decision in terms of the permissible restrictions on the right to family life and draws on the Court's reasoning for an in-depth analysis of various unarticulated aspects of the prohibition on collective punishment. The article concludes that an international human rights law analysis might have led to a different outcome, and that had the Court applied the prohibition on collective punishment properly, it would have had to declare the measure unlawful. The article then places the decision in the broader context of the Court's engagement with international law in disputes relating to Palestinians residing in the West Bank and Gaza.

中文翻译：

---

关于囚犯、家庭生活和集体惩罚：南南案

本文审查了以色列最高法院 (the Court) 在 2019 年南南案，维持禁止家人探访被关押在以色列并隶属于哈马斯的加沙囚犯。1这项禁令是以色列试图向哈马斯施加压力的一部分，要求其用巴勒斯坦被拘留者和囚犯交换失踪的以色列平民和以色列士兵的尸体，这些士兵显然被哈马斯关押在加沙地带。法院主要根据以色列行政法审查了该措施，并认为它没有理由进行干预。它认为，根据国际法进行分析会产生相同的结果。本文根据适用的国际法审查法院的裁决。它从允许限制家庭生活权的角度考虑了法院的裁决，并借鉴了法院的推理，对禁止集体惩罚的各个未明确方面进行了深入分析。文章的结论是，国际人权法分析可能会导致不同的结果，如果法院适当地应用了禁止集体惩罚，它将不得不宣布该措施为非法。然后，文章将这一决定置于法院在处理与居住在西岸和加沙地带的巴勒斯坦人有关的争端中参与国际法的更广泛背景下。