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.
State Attorney Amit Aisman, Israel's chief prosecutor, may handle the investigation into leaked footage from the Sde Teiman detention facility and the alleged cover-up, the High Court of Justice ruled on Wednesday.
The ruling allows Aisman and his prosecution team to continue reviewing the full police file, determine whether further investigation is needed, and decide whether charges should be filed.
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 petition was filed by bereaved-families organization Bacharnu B'Haim and two bereaved fathers. They 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.
The restriction on Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara remains in place. The dispute concerned legal oversight after she, Aisman, and other senior officials were initially excluded because they might have to testify about an earlier examination.
The investigation 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 leak's source was concealed. Former military advocate-general Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi admitted in October 2025 that she authorized its release.
The reservists' indictment was withdrawn in March, partly because the detainee had been released to Gaza under the hostage agreement and because of evidentiary difficulties, the ruling noted.
In an earlier ruling, the court 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, but the court struck down the appointment because Kula was legally barred from taking another role. Levin subsequently appointed retired judge Yosef Ben-Hamo, whose appointment was canceled because he did not meet the eligibility requirements.
After Ben-Hamo's appointment was struck down, Levin neither appointed another eligible supervisor nor asked the court to make an appointment.
The investigation continued under senior police supervision. Police told Kotik on February 3 that their work 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 her updated opinion on March 8.
The opinion found that Aisman had not participated in the events under investigation and would not need to testify. Although he had attended a January 2025 meeting concerning the earlier examination, police concluded that his presence did not justify calling him as a witness.
The materials were subsequently transferred to Aisman, who established a prosecution team overseen by two of his deputies to summarize the file and recommend whether additional investigative work was required.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Isaac Amit, joined by Justice Khaled Kabub, ruled that Kotik's opinion rested on a sufficiently current and comprehensive factual basis. The information available to her was substantially broader than that underlying her original opinion, which was written near the beginning of the investigation.
The majority also relied on a standing decision issued by Levin in 2023, under which the A-G's prosecutorial powers pass to Aisman whenever she is barred from handling a case. Once Aisman's own restriction was removed, the court held that the arrangement resumed automatically and no new appointment was required.
The majority refused to give Levin additional time to appoint an external supervisor, noting that he had declined for months to exercise the authority granted to him. Amit said the petitioners and Levin raised the issue only after the investigation had produced conclusions with which they disagreed.
Making the validity or completion of the investigation dependent on an appointment by the justice minister would give him influence over its pace, direction, and even its continued existence, Amit wrote, 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, saying judges do not act as investigators or replace the professional judgment of law enforcement authorities.
It also stressed that neither Baharav-Miara nor Aisman was a suspect, and criticized unsupported accusations of a cover-up against them.
Justice David Mintz dissented from the remainder of the ruling. He argued that the earlier judgment had treated external supervision as a necessary safeguard, not an option, and that an investigation conducted without such oversight could not itself provide the basis for lifting Aisman's restriction.
Mintz said Levin should be ordered to explain why he had not appointed an eligible external supervisor. He acknowledged that doing so could further delay the case, but said speed did not justify disregarding the requirement for an independent and credible investigation.
Yonah Jeremy Bob contributed to this report.