103 polled, an increase of (19%) from the year 2009, felt they were exposed to pressure by the Security Services. This in itself constitutes a serious indication of the independence of the judge, and neutrality in facing adversaries. III ‐ The Right to Litigation and Public Service (Decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice on the Dismissal of Staff) On 17/03/2010, the Supreme Court of Justice issued its decision by a majority on refuting the case of the dismissed teachers because the Security Services refused to appoint them ‐ under the pretext of the non jurisdiction of the court. Two judges on the panel had a dissenting opinion and have confirmed the jurisdiction of the court and the illegality of dismissing teachers in accordance with the Palestinian Civil Servants Law.110 The facts of these cases focused on the issue of the dismissed employees who had been appointed in accordance with decisions issued by the Minister of Education from the date of commencing their work. On 03/09/2007, the Palestinian Cabinet decided in its session No. (18), held on 03/09/2007 to consider security checks as part of the recruitment process, and the General Personnel Council is responsible for the recruitment process, and has to make contact with the Security Services in this regard.111 Accordingly, the Preventive Security Service and the Intelligence Service began to send letters containing lists of a number of staff to the Ministry of Education. The letters recommend the appointment of some and the non‐appointment of others without specifying the reasons. On that basis, the Minister of Education and Higher Education decided to suspend staff from work due to lack of approval of the concerned security authorities on their appointments. 110 Within ICHR’s follow‐up of the files of laid‐off teachers, ICHR submitted (54) of these files to the Supreme Court of Justice. On 15/12/2009, ICHR submitted (22) cases, and then referred a group of cases in sequence monthly from January to May. The number of files being pursued by ICHR in this area is about (54) files. It should be noted here that ICHR received a preliminary decision on 11/01/2009. On 25/02/2009, the Public Prosecution provided the regulation of response and requested a time limit to provide evidence. On 08/04/2009, the Public Prosecution submitted its evidence and on 08/07/2009 ICHR provided its final defense. In response to that procedure, the Public Prosecution provided its final defense 14/10/2009. And therefore, the session was adjourned for a decision on 23/11/2009. The hearing session of the final decision was postponed more than three times with no explanation of the reasons for postponement. On 17/03/2010, the Supreme Court of Justice issued its decision by majority by rejecting the petitioner’s case due to lack of jurisdiction. 111 Secretary‐General of the Council of Ministers’ book no. (am/2007 & 2115), dated 09/09/2007, addressed to the Chairman of the General Personnel Council.