The Supreme Court, in case 4702/94, Salah Ahmed Kaddam Al-Thai v. Minister of Internal Affairs, ruled that the principle of non-refoulement, justified in article 33, annotation 33 to the Convention on Refugees, is valid in Israel in any government agency regarding the deportation of a person from Israel.
The court ruled that the principle of non-refoulement is a general principle that does not make limitations and “is applied in Israel in all government bodies dealing with issues of deportation of a person from Israel.”
The principle of non-refoulement is enshrined in the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951 and, in an additional protocol of 1967, to which the State of Israel has acceded. The State of Israel is committed to this principle, according to which a person is not deported to a place where his life is in serious danger.
An asylum-seeker who is granted permission of 2A5 type will be entitled to work and earn for a decent life in his host country.
The Supreme Court recognized the right to a decent living wage, as part of the right to dignity according to the basic law on “Human dignity and freedom”. “The dignity of a person,” wrote Barak, the retired President, “including … protecting the minimum living wage for human existence … a person living on the street with no housing is a person whose dignity as a person is impaired; a person thirsting for bread is a person whose dignity as a person is impaired;
A person who does not have access to basic medical treatment, is a person whose dignity as a person is impaired; a person who is forced to live in humiliating material conditions, is a person whose dignity as a person is impaired. (Civil appellate body 4905/98, Gamzu v. Yeshayahu, Resolution 375-376, 360 (3)).
Please also see the article of the Honourable Judge Arbel, who stated: “the basic law on Human Dignity and Freedom is designed to ensure the basic human existence of every person in a society … depriving a person of minimum means for subsistence and of a minimum income violates his dignity.” (Supreme Court 3512/04, Schazife v. National Labor Court, Resolution 70.76, .)
See also the decision of the retired President Barak in the Supreme Court 03/366, Association dedicated to the promotion of peace and social justice v. the Minister of Finance, Resolution 482-483, 464 (3).