Historic Knesset Vote Establishes Framework for the October 7 Trials in Israel ⚖️

2 days ago
8 min read

On 11 May 2026, shortly before 23:00, the Knesset adopted landmark legislation establishing a dedicated legal framework for the prosecution of the October 7 atrocities. The bill was passed by an overwhelming majority of 93 out of 120 Members of Knesset, without opposition.

The vote took place exactly 66 years to the day after Adolf Eichmann was captured in Argentina to be brought to Israel to stand trial in Jerusalem. The historical coincidence was not lost on lawmakers. The newly adopted legislation is expected to shape one of the most significant criminal accountability processes in Israeli history: the prosecution of perpetrators of the October 7 massacre before Israeli courts.

What Court was established? Does it make changes retroactively, thereby violating established principles of criminal law? Why was it needed? Adapting the Rules of Procedure and Evidence while maintaining Fair Trials to Defendants,, the Death Penalty under existing law and guarantees and the role of victims in the criminal process- you are welcome to read more below.

A Specialized Military Tribunal applying an existing normative framework to address October 7 Atrocities

The law establishes a specialized military tribunal seated in Jerusalem to prosecute those bearing criminal responsibility for the October 7 massacres. While structured as a military tribunal for logistical and operational reasons, the court will apply substantive civilian criminal law and maintain core fair trial guarantees.

The legislation incorporates existing Israeli criminal law — including the 1948 Genocide Law, never previously applied — while adapting procedural and evidentiary rules to the realities of mass atrocity prosecutions. It also introduces explicit protections and participatory rights for victims before, during, and after proceedings.

The death penalty under existing military law is applicable, however the prerogatives of the Major General in terms of deciding on the execution of sentences is transferred to civil entities, such as the Minister of Justice, Minister of Defence, and former High Court Justices. The death penalty in its current format requires unanimity and an automatic appeal to a higher court. While we do not believe the death sentence will serve justice, the law does not change the existing normative framework, of which arguably, perpetrators of the atrocities took upon themselves when they attacked Israel territory and committed genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and terrorism, by extermination, murder, rape and sexual violence, torture, pillage and wanton destruction, hostage-taking and enforced disappearance- continued crimes for which not all answers are known till this day (see for example, Nirel Zini's continued disappearance and his family's struggle for the truth here. We are proud to represent Nirel Zini's family pro bono from October 2023). We do oppose the application of the death penalty and recall Israeli record of execution death sentences amount to two. One for Adolph Eichmann and the second for a man wrongly accused of treason and innocented post mortem. To read more about our standfast opposition of the New Death Penalty Law- which is inapplicable to October 7 perpetrators read here.

During the Knesset debate, MK Yulia Malinovsky described the forthcoming proceedings as “the Eichmann Trials of our generation.”

https://video.wixstatic.com/video/0cd116_f51126df740248da8c70ade427743603/360p/mp4/file.mp4

Video: Attorney Yael Vias Gvirsman speaking during the Knesset Committee deliberations on the proposed October 7 atrocities prosecution bill, February 4, 2026.

Why the Law Was Needed

Following extensive debate over whether the prosecutions should proceed before an internationalized, civilian, or military tribunal, lawmakers ultimately adopted a hybrid model: military in structure, civilian in substance.

Throughout the legislative process, prosecutorial authorities and civil society organizations — including October 7 Justice Without Borders (O7J) — argued that the proceedings must retain a fundamentally civilian character. The crimes were directed overwhelmingly against civilians and encompass allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, terrorism, sexual violence, torture, hostage-taking, and extermination. Prosecuting such crimes requires the expertise of senior civilian prosecutors and judges experienced in complex criminal litigation.

At the same time, the scale of the proceedings — potentially involving hundreds or thousands of defendants, extensive evidentiary material, and tens of thousands of victims — necessitated a dedicated military administrative framework. The law therefore mandates the establishment of a tribunal within one year under the supervision of a military-appointed project manager.

Israeli authorities are estimated to hold between 300 and 3,500 suspected direct perpetrators and co-perpetrators who may now face trial under this framework. Prior to the law’s adoption, many detainees were either released or held under Israel’s Unlawful Combatants Law, subject to renewable judicial review.

More than 80,000 recognized victims are expected to be directly affected by what are already being referred to as the “October Trials.” Nearly 950 days after the attacks, Israeli society continues to grapple with the enduring trauma and consequences of the atrocities.

The Challenge of Prosecuting Mass Atrocities

The legislation reflects evidentiary and procedural challenges rarely encountered in Israeli courts but common in international atrocity prosecutions. Legislators acknowledged the need for procedural flexibility while maintaining due process and judicial safeguards.

The trials are expected to attract exceptional domestic and international scrutiny, intensifying the need to safeguard victims’ dignity, participation, and psychological well-being throughout proceedings. How the law is implemented — and how the trials are conducted — will shape both Israeli society’s reception of the proceedings and broader international perceptions of Israel’s commitment to accountability and the rule of law.

The proceedings may also play a defining role in Israel’s transition from mass atrocity toward stabilization, reconstruction, and, ultimately, the possibility of long-term peace.

Attorney Yael Vias Gvirsman speaking before the Knesset Constitution Committee during deliberations on the proposed October 7 atrocities prosecution bill, February 4, 2026.

Defining the Scope of the Indictments: Recognizing the Harm

The attacks of October 7 constituted a coordinated assault carried out pursuant to a common operational plan. Yet for prosecutorial coherence, indictments are expected to be organized according to specific “crime bases” — the distinct locations where crimes were committed — and the individual incidents that occurred within them.

According to information presented during parliamentary discussions, approximately 8,200 perpetrators affiliated with six Palestinian armed groups participated in the attacks. Many crossed into Israel during the first three days of fighting. The alleged crimes include murder, extermination, rape and sexual violence, torture, hostage-taking, enforced disappearance, destruction of civilian property, and pillage. Victims included men, women, children, elderly persons, Holocaust survivors, and persons with disabilities across at least 28 separate locations. Entire families and intergenerational communities were destroyed.

Additional elements of the concerted and sadistic attack include, indiscriminate missile attacks; the use of incendiary materials capable of reaching extreme temperatures; body-mounted cameras intended to document and disseminate violence; and the deliberate use of psychological terror against the civilian population. There was no mercy and children, elder persons, disabled, men and women were targeted indiscriminately. The attacks also triggered the displacement of more than 330,000 Israelis and left thousands missing.

The Knesset Plenum during the final vote on the “Bill on the Prosecution for the Events of the October 7, 2023 Massacre (Shemini Atzeret Massacre), 2026,” adopted in its second and third readings on 11 May 2026.

Main Features of the Law

🏛 A Military Tribunal with Civilian Judicial Characteristics

The tribunal will operate within a military framework while applying safeguards associated with civilian courts. Judicial panels are expected to include sitting or former District Court and Supreme Court judges alongside military judges, with trial chambers headed by District Court judges. O7J supported a civil and internationalized court, however, within the military framework the important guarantee received was that the trials will remain civil in nature, led by regular criminal Prosecutors simply recruited as reserve, to this mission. Judges as well will mostly be District and High Court judges, alongside military judges (former or acting). To read Att. Yael Vias Gvirsman's oped in Haaretz on the need to keep it civil see here.

📚 Application of Israeli Criminal Law

The tribunal will apply the full scope of relevant Israeli criminal law, including counter-terrorism legislation and provisions relating to international crimes. Notably, this is the first Israeli law to explicitly reference “crimes against humanity.”

Parliamentary discussions also acknowledged the need to address forms of sexual violence recognized under international criminal law but not yet fully codified under domestic legislation. O7J provided oral and written submissions, including scholalry publication as to include crimes of a customary nature, including of a sexual character and will accompany the process so as to bring full recognition of the conduct, as well as relevant modes of liability.

🔎 Adapted Rules of Procedure and Evidence

The law grants judges limited discretion to admit evidence that may otherwise be inadmissible under traditional evidentiary rules, provided fair trial standards are preserved. Supporters emphasized that any deviation from strict common law standards should remain consistent with practices accepted in democratic civil-law systems and international tribunals, including the International Criminal Court. O7J provided oral and written submissions, including peer-reviewed publication on adapting hybrid or 'sui generis' rule of procedure in prosecuting international crimes. Mainly, our position is that the common law system can adapt to accept evidence that would otherwise be inadmissable, as far as it abides by international standards and fair trials. In other words, what would be admissible in civil law countries jurisdictions (France, Germany, or the International Criminal Court) would be admissible before the military tribunal for 710 cases. This excludes any confessions aquired through torture. Our view is reflected in the law and was the stance of the professional authorities (MOJ) taking part in the Knesset Committee debates.

⚫ The Death Penalty

The law preserves — but does not expand — existing Israeli provisions permitting capital punishment before military courts. Under current law, a death sentence requires a unanimous judicial decision and is subject to automatic appeal. The legislation neither creates new capital offenses nor mandates the death penalty.

⚖️ Fair Trial Guarantees

The principle of fair trial rights is repeatedly emphasized throughout the legislation. The law reaffirms due process protections, including legal representation, defense rights, procedural safeguards, and the principle of non-retroactivity, consistent with Israel’s domestic and international legal obligations. O7J has continuously stated the ability to adapt the procedure to the challenges of reality, as long as fair trials are maintained. The right to a fair trial is a principle recognized to the Defence, but it is also a right belonging to Victims and the Prosecution.

👥 Victims’ Rights and Participation

A central innovation of the law is the formal recognition of victims’ procedural standing throughout the judicial process. The framework seeks to ensure victims’ participation and recognition before, during, and after proceedings, including protections relating to dignity, visibility, and institutional support. Most pioneering is the establishment of a focal point for victims within the MOJ and Prosecutor's office. Victim rights will be affected by the trials, and especially so seeing the extreme interest they are likely to attract. O7J is advocating to a reversal of the onus of protecting victim rights, from the victims to the parties (Judges, Prosecutors, Defence Attorneys) and is in continuous dialogue with the authorities. A key point we advanced is the need to make victim rights a reality, beyond the text- an objective that will require training and monitoring for the officials of the court and all parties.

The real test for this law is how it will be implemented, who the judges and prosecutors will be, the protection of defense rights and the role and rights of vicitms in the process. Bylaws are expected and we will continue to provide our input at the service of investgiative and prosecutorial authorities, the victims and Israeli rule of law and society.

OCTOBER 7 JUSTICE’s Role

October 7 Justice Without Borders (O7J) played an active role throughout the parliamentary process, contributing written and oral submissions to the Knesset committee deliberations. The organisation represents more than 450 victims from 20 separate crime locations before domestic and international jurisdictions.

Drawing on comparative experience in atrocity accountability proceedings, O7J has focused on ensuring that the emerging legal framework aligns with international legal standards while remaining responsive to the specific evidentiary and human realities of October 7.

Its work includes engagement with Israeli lawmakers, prosecutors, and investigative authorities, as well as broader efforts relating to international criminal accountability, civil litigation, and engagement with UN human rights mechanisms and special procedures.

Read all the relevant submissions here: