Supreme Court Rejects Petition in Military Advocate General Affair

The Supreme Court rejected a petition today, Wednesday, regarding the Military Advocate General affair. The court ruled that there is no cause for judicial intervention in the investigation, nor is there any reason to prevent the State Attorney from deciding on the charges in the case against former Military Advocate General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi. Furthermore, the court ruled that there is no cause to grant Justice Minister Yariv Levin additional time to appoint a supervisor for the investigation, which has already concluded.

The petition sought instructions regarding the investigation into the leak of materials from the "Sde Teiman" facility. The court, led by Supreme Court President Isaac Amit and judges David Mintz and Khaled Kabub, ruled unanimously that there is no cause to order the police to carry out specific investigative actions.

By a majority opinion, Amit and Kabub determined that there is no cause for judicial intervention in the opinion of the Ministry of Justice's Legal Advisor, according to which the State Attorney is no longer prevented from accompanying the investigation. Judge Mintz, in a minority opinion, believed that a conditional order should have been issued instructing the Justice Minister to explain why he would not exercise his authority to appoint a supervisory body.

The petition was filed against the backdrop of the leak of video footage from the "Sde Teiman" facility by elements within the Military Advocate General's Corps. Previously, the High Court of Justice (Bagatz) had ruled that the Justice Minister was authorized to appoint a senior civil servant to supervise the investigation, while imposing restrictions to mitigate concerns over political influence. The Minister failed to appoint a supervisor meeting the court's criteria and did not request the court's assistance in doing so.

Meanwhile, the investigation continued under police supervision. The police concluded the investigation in February. It was determined that the Attorney General and the State Attorney were not criminally involved in the affair and were not required to provide testimony.

In March, an updated opinion concluded that State Attorney Amit Aisman could oversee the investigation and decide on indictments. The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not serve as an "investigating judge" and does not replace the professional discretion of law enforcement authorities.

President Amit noted that the petitioners only raised claims regarding the need for a supervisor after the investigation yielded conclusions they disliked, indicating laches. It was further emphasized that conditioning the completion of the investigation on the appointment of a supervisor by the Minister would grant the Minister power to influence the pace and direction of the investigation, which is inconsistent with the goal of preventing the politicization of criminal proceedings.