A significant development has occurred in a case concerning former Military Advocate General (MAG) Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi. According to reports from the ICE news site, Supreme Court Justice Daphne Barak-Erez ordered the summary dismissal of a petition for a further hearing in the matter. This decision follows a series of legal proceedings that led to the lifting of a temporary injunction that had previously halted the case, effectively transferring the full authority to decide on a potential indictment to State Attorney Amit Aisman.
The background for this decision lies in a Supreme Court ruling delivered several days ago, which concluded that there was no basis for judicial intervention in the management of the case. The court ruled then that there was no cause to grant the Minister of Justice, Yariv Levin, additional time to appoint an oversight body for an investigation that had already concluded. Following this, Member of Knesset Avichai Boaron and the 'Lavi' organization filed a request for a further hearing; however, Justice Barak-Erez clarified that the request was denied as the ruling did not establish a new legal precedent warranting such an exceptional procedure.
In her reasoning, the Justice criticized attempts by the political echelon to intervene in the investigation. She stated that the petitioners' position risks undermining safeguards designed to prevent political influence in criminal proceedings, especially when the Justice Minister's actions were carried out contrary to the legal opinion of his ministry's legal counsel. Barak-Erez concluded that with the legal obstacles removed, the case can proceed in accordance with the law.
This case, according to source material, began in August 2024 following the distribution of security camera footage from the Sde Teiman facility, which involved suspicions of abuse of a Palestinian detainee by reserve soldiers. The formal criminal investigation into the matter was opened in October 2025 after receiving approval from the Attorney General. Now that the legal path is clear, it remains to be seen how the State Attorney will decide on the case. This decision marks the end of the procedural stage that had delayed the final determination, returning the matter to the professional authorities at the Ministry of Justice to examine the evidence and make a final decision on how to proceed.