by Sarah Ben-Nun
A highly charged High Court hearing is underway to settle the dispute over the Sde Teiman video leak investigation. Judges must decide between the State Attorney's Office and Minister Levin's pick.
 |
A packed courtroom looked on on Tuesday morning as a three-panel High Court of Justice bench began to hear arguments on who will investigate former Military Attorney General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi for her responsibility in leaking the video showing abuse of a detainee at the Sde Teiman base by IDF reservists last July.
Judges Yael Wilner, Alex Stein, and Gila Kanfi-Steinitz will determine who should supervise and accompany the sensitive investigation.
Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara initially pressed to be the one to probe the case, but on Thursday evening said that it would be transferred to State Attorney Amit Aisman instead. She said this was due to her involvement in the original probe of the leak and her failure to catch the original cover-up at the time. Her involvement in the original case could lead to her being called as a witness.
Justice Minister Yariv Levin, however, due to his viewing Baharav-Miara and her position as illegitimate, which has been one of the focal points of the judicial reform legislation, campaigned instead for the appointment of Judicial Complaints Investigator and former judge Asher Kula to the case.
Three more organizations joined the petition on Monday: two Right-wing ones that pushed for Kula’s appointment, and one that called to cancel it.
Levin vs. AG: Political battle over Sde Teiman probe head
On February 19, the military prosecution filed an indictment against five reservist soldiers of “Force 100” at Sde Teiman, charging them with aggravated abuse and causing serious bodily harm to a security detainee held at the facility. Three Force 100 reservists were present at the hearing on Tuesday, in masks and sunglasses to prevent identification, and were received into the room with applause from the audience. Present as well was Likud MK Tally Gotliv.According to the indictment, the incident took place on July 5, 2024. The detainee was reportedly blindfolded, hand-and-foot chained, brought to a search area, and subjected to extreme violence: beatings, being dragged, stepped on, tased (including the head), and, in one instance, stabbed in the buttock/rectal area with a sharp object, causing internal injuries.
The injuries listed include: broken ribs, a lung puncture, and a tear in the rectum.
The event triggered investigations into the leaked video of the incident and its cover-up, and also civilian/protester intrusion into the base following the arrests.
The judges pressed the prosecution representative, Ran Rosenberg, on the source of authority to transfer the authority to follow the investigation to Aisman, not in general, but specifically in this case. That is the prosecution's goal in this case: to have Aisman take the case, not Kula.
Rosenberg said that the situation of a judge appointing a prosecutor is unprecedented; Wilner responded, "This entire case is unprecedented.
Wilner said, "The A-G, justifiably, followed this case from the start... Her stepping away from managing the case now is not situational; it is fundamental, in this case... We're asking: who is the figure, by law, to step in and fill the gap created here?"
Rosenberg and the judges went back and forth on this point for about 40 minutes.
Government representative, the private representation, Zion Amir stressed the “damage that this case - the leaking of the video and everything that followed - did to Israel on so many levels… which connects directly to the issue and legal question of recusal.”
Kanfi-Steinitz insisted that a minister applying authority to decide who leads an investigation is necessarily a political intervention in an ongoing criminal case. Amir responded that it is within the minister’s authority to do so - especially in a case of recusal.
The focus of the discussion was Section 23a of the Civil Service (Appointments) Law (1959), which addresses exactly that: a case where authority is temporarily transferred to someone else. This can be due to technicalities of position vacuums, or, in this case, recusal.
This case specifically is about Levin taking that authority from the A-G and transferring it to Kula.
Wilner pressed Amir on a clause that prevented Kula, because of his position, from taking on another role that would create a conflict of interest.
Sarah Ben-Nun
Source: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/article-873454
No comments:
Post a Comment