Full Breakdown
High Court Allows State Attorney Amit Aisman to Lead Sde Teiman Detention-Facility Probe
8/13/2026, 12:52:00 AM
Court Ruling Allows State Attorney to Continue Investigation
The Israeli High Court of Justice ruled 2-1 that State Attorney Amit Aisman may remain in charge of the criminal investigation into leaked footage from the Sde Teiman detention facility. The majority held that Aisman is no longer barred from the case and that no external supervisor is required, rejecting the petition by the bereaved-families organization Bacharnu B’Haim and two fathers that sought to bar him and to give Justice Minister Yariv Levin additional time to appoint a supervisor. The court also affirmed that Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara remains restricted from the case.
Background of the Leaked Footage and Prior Oversight Attempts
The footage, broadcast in August 2024, appeared to show IDF reservists abusing a Palestinian detainee at Sde Teiman. Former Military Advocate-General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi admitted in October 2025 that she authorized the release of the video. An indictment against the reservists was withdrawn in March after the detainee was released to Gaza under a hostage-exchange agreement and because of evidentiary challenges.
Justice Ministry legal adviser Yael Kotik issued an updated opinion on March 8 after receiving additional information, concluding that Aisman had not participated in the events under investigation and would not need to testify. Earlier attempts by Levin to appoint an external supervisor—first Judicial Complaints Commissioner Asher Kula, then retired judge Yosef Ben-Hamo—were struck down because each appointee failed eligibility requirements. Levin subsequently made no further appointment.
Official Judicial Reasoning and Statements
The majority noted that a 2023 decision by Levin transfers prosecutorial authority to Aisman whenever the Attorney-General is barred, and that once Aisman’s restriction was lifted, the arrangement resumed automatically. The court rejected the request to order police to pursue specific investigative steps, stating that judges do not replace law-enforcement judgment.
Criticism from Bereaved Families and Dissenting Justice
The petitioners argued that external supervision is a necessary safeguard against political influence. Justice David Mintz dissented, contending that the earlier judgment treated supervision as essential and that an investigation without it cannot justify lifting Aisman’s restriction.
Ongoing Investigation and Next Steps
Police continued the probe under senior police supervision. On February 3, police informed Kotik that their work had produced evidence against several individuals within the Military Advocate-General’s Office, but none outside it. The investigation remains open, with Aisman’s team tasked with summarizing the file and recommending any further investigative actions.
