104 The following points to the environment in which the decision to turn down the teachers’ cases under the pretext of lack of specialty was issued: 1) through a review of the resolutions of the Supreme Court of Justice; 2) the circumstances surrounding its issuance in terms of the length of time taken by the trial; 3) frequent alternating of the head of the Court and its membership; 4) postponement of a verdict more than three times; 5) issuing this provision by a quintet committee formed at a later time; 6) and the closure of the proceedings. What confirms this is the results of the survey, which shows an increase in the percentage of judges who believe that they are subjected to pressure from members of the Higher Judicial Council by (41%) in the survey of 2010, compared to (31%) in the survey of 2009, and an increase in the percentage of judges who believe that judges react to these pressures by (86%) in a poll conducted in 2010, compared to (79%) in a poll conducted in 2009. In ICHR’s comment on the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, we find that the Court did not discuss in its decision the reasons for the contested decision (decisions to dismiss the teachers under the pretext of non‐approval of the security authorities). It decided to reject the case due to lack of jurisdiction. But the decision given in this case confronted the legality of the reasons for this decision revealed by the administration explicitly, which is the non‐approval of the security authorities to appoint the petitioner. The decision ended by stating the illegitimacy of the case. In this resolution, the following expressions were stated “The Civil Service Act No. (4) of 1998 came in line with what is stated in the Basic Law when it stated in Articles (24 & 25) which contained that a person to be appointed in any public office, without any mention of the security approval, but required in this area that the appointed in the job shall enjoy his civil rights not doomed from a Palestinian court of crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or dishonesty unless he has been considered.” In these two laws (the General Intelligence Law of 2005 and the Preventive Security Law of 2007), nothing was mentioned which requires the approval of the General Intelligence or the Preventive Security on the appointment of staff in public office. Based on the above, the Cabinet’s decision was issued on 03/09/2007, which stipulated security approval for the appointment shall be considered non‐existent because it affected fundamental rights guaranteed by the Basic Law and violated the Civil Service Law, the General Intelligence Law and the Preventive Security Act.