Israeli Supreme Court Clears Way for Indictment in Former Military Advocate Case

The Israeli Supreme Court rejected a petition on April 3, 2024, that sought to allow Justice Minister Yariv Levin to appoint an external overseer to the investigation into former Military Advocate General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi. The court ruled unanimously that there was no conflict of interest preventing State Attorney Amit Isman from leading the probe, and it declined to order specific police investigative actions. This decision came after the investigation was paused pending a decision on whether to indict Tomer-Yerushalmi and other senior military prosecutors for leaking investigation materials.

The court emphasized that it would not act as an investigative judge or override the professional discretion of law enforcement agencies. However, Justice David Mintz dissented, advocating for a conditional order requiring the Justice Minister to justify not appointing an external supervisor. Earlier in March, Deputy Attorney General Yael Kotik determined that Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara remained conflicted in the case and transferred it to State Attorney Isman, who was deemed to have limited involvement in the military prosecution’s internal inquiry into the leak.

Separately, two days before the Supreme Court ruling, the Military Advocate General decided to drop charges against five defendants in the "Sde Teiman" case, citing significant developments, evidentiary challenges, and concerns related to the release of a security detainee to Gaza. The military prosecution also considered claims of "justification defense" involving senior officials’ conduct and unprecedented circumstances surrounding the case.

In November 2023, Baharav-Miara announced her intention to relinquish involvement in the matter and transfer it to the prosecution. Justice Minister Levin appointed retired judge Asher Grunis to investigate the leak and alleged obstruction of justice, pending the removal of the Attorney General’s conflict of interest. Baharav-Miara later contested this appointment as unlawful interference in a criminal investigation.