Law note · State of Palestine

Palestinian Basic Law (Amended 2003), Privacy and Remedy Provisions

cite Palestinian Basic Law (Amended) 2003, Arts. 17 and 32 stage IN FORCE in force since 2003-03-18 kind Enforcement supervision binds public and private bodies reviewed 2026-08-29

What it requires

  • Palestine has no comprehensive personal-data-protection statute; these articles do not themselves create data-processing duties like lawful basis, consent, or breach notification. An app operating in Palestinian territory whose activity, including collecting or using a person's voiceprint, faceprint, or other private information, violates a person's personal freedom or the sanctity of their private life may face both criminal prosecution and a civil damages claim under Article 32 of the Basic Law, with no statute of limitations; no court decision or implementing statute defining how this general remedy applies to routine data processing was found. Entering or searching a home to obtain data without a valid judicial order is separately barred by Article 17.

When LexLint raises it

  • crawls_web
  • trains_models
  • generates_content
  • deploys_chatbot
  • automated_outreach
  • high_risk_decisions
  • processes_voice
  • processes_biometrics
Private right of action
Yes

What we found

Article 17 makes homes inviolable, barring surveillance, entry, or search absent a valid judicial order, and voids any resulting consequences while entitling a person harmed by a violation to a remedy guaranteed by the National Authority.

Article 32 goes further: it declares any violation of a personal freedom or of "the sanctity of the private life of human beings" a crime, guarantees both criminal and civil cases with no statute of limitations, and obliges the National Authority to guarantee a fair remedy. Neither article establishes a lawful-basis regime, data-subject rights, a supervisory authority, or a breach-notification duty; Palestine has no comprehensive personal-data statute for these general remedies to sit within.

This corrects a derivation candidate that cited "Article 27" for privacy; that article is a press and media freedom provision.

← Back to the example  ·  Lint your app →