Israel's High Court of Justice ruled on Wednesday that State Attorney Amit Aisman may oversee the investigation into leaked footage from the Sde Teiman detention facility and an alleged cover-up of its source, allowing him and his prosecution team to review the full police file, determine whether further investigation is needed, and decide whether to file charges.
Israeli High Court Allows State Attorney to Handle Sde Teiman Abuse Investigation
Israel's High Court of Justice ruled on Wednesday that State Attorney Amit Aisman may oversee the investigation into leaked footage from the Sde Teiman detention facility and an alleged cover-up of its source, allowing him and his prosecution team to review the full police file, determine whether further investigation is needed, and decide whether to file charges.
The case centers on footage broadcast in August 2024 that appeared to show IDF reservists abusing a Palestinian detainee at Sde Teiman, as well as allegations that the origin of the leak was concealed. Former military advocate-general Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi admitted in October 2025 that she authorized the footage's release.
The indictment against the reservists was withdrawn in March, partly because the detainee had been released to Gaza under the hostage agreement and because of evidentiary difficulties, according to the ruling.
The court ruled 2-1 that there was no basis to overturn an updated opinion by Justice Ministry legal adviser Yael Kotik, finding that Aisman was no longer barred from the criminal case. The restriction on Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara remains in place.
The dispute over legal oversight arose after Baharav-Miara, Aisman, and other senior officials were initially excluded because they might have to testify about an earlier examination of the footage release.
The petition was filed by bereaved-families organization Bacharnu B'Haim and two bereaved fathers, who sought to bar Aisman and the prosecution from the case, give Justice Minister Yariv Levin more time to appoint an external supervisor, and require police to pursue specific lines of investigation.
Police informed Kotik on February 3 that their investigation had produced evidence against several people within the Military Advocate-General's Office, but nobody outside it. Investigators took dozens of statements, conducted confrontations and searches, arrested two suspects, and questioned five others under caution.
Kotik sought further information, met the head of the police Investigations and Intelligence Division, and received additional details before issuing an updated opinion on March 8, finding that Aisman had not participated in the events under investigation and would not need to testify. Although he attended a January 2025 meeting about the earlier examination, police concluded his presence did not justify calling him as a witness.
Following Kotik's opinion, the materials were transferred to Aisman, who established a prosecution team overseen by two deputies to summarize the file and recommend whether additional investigative work was required.
In an earlier ruling, the court had found that Levin could appoint a senior civil servant to perform the attorney-general's supervisory role, subject to restrictions intended to prevent political influence. Levin first appointed Judicial Complaints Commissioner Asher Kula, whose appointment was struck down because Kula was legally barred from taking another role. He then appointed retired judge Yosef Ben-Hamo, whose appointment was also canceled because he did not meet eligibility requirements. After that, Levin neither appointed another eligible supervisor nor asked the court to make an appointment, and the investigation continued under senior police supervision.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Isaac Amit, joined by Justice Khaled Kabub, held that Kotik's opinion rested on a sufficiently current and comprehensive factual basis, and that the information available to her was substantially broader than that underlying her original opinion. The majority also relied on a 2023 standing decision by Levin under which the attorney-general's prosecutorial powers pass to Aisman whenever she is barred from a case, ruling that once Aisman's own restriction was removed, the arrangement resumed automatically without a new appointment.
The majority declined to grant Levin additional time to appoint an external supervisor, noting he had declined for months to exercise the authority previously granted to him. Chief Justice Amit wrote that making the validity or completion of the investigation dependent on a ministerial appointment would give the justice minister influence over its pace, direction, and continued existence, contrary to the need to protect criminal investigations from political influence.
The court unanimously rejected the request to order police to undertake particular investigative steps, stating that judges do not act as investigators or replace the professional judgment of law enforcement. It also stressed that neither Baharav-Miara nor Aisman was a suspect, and criticized what it described as unsupported accusations of a cover-up against them.
Police reported in February that they had completed their investigative work, although the majority assumed for the purposes of the ruling that the investigation itself had not formally concluded.
- Justice Minister Yariv Levin's stated reasons for not appointing an eligible external supervisor after Ben-Hamo's appointment was canceled are not detailed in the source.
- The identities of the individuals within the Military Advocate-General's Office against whom police produced evidence are not disclosed.
- The identities of the two suspects arrested and the five individuals questioned under caution are not provided.
- The specific content or conclusions of the prosecution team's ongoing file review are not yet known.
- The source text supplied appears truncated; some material may be missing.
Read the original at The Jerusalem Post