GROK translation of The Decision of the Military Advocate General to Order
the Cancellation of the Indictment in the "Sde Teiman" Affair issued 12
March 2026

Following a renewed examination of the evidence underlying the indictment in
the "Sde Teiman" affair, and due to significant developments that have
occurred since its filing, the Military Advocate General has decided today
(Thursday) to order the cancellation of the indictment against the five
defendants in the case.BackgroundOn July 29, 2024, an open investigation was
opened regarding several reserve soldiers who were part of "Force 100" and
served at the "Sde Teiman" camp. The reserve soldiers were arrested and
investigated on suspicion of committing serious offenses against a security
detainee. The arrest and the opening of the open investigation led to a
series of protests, some violent, including breaches into two military
bases.A few days after the opening of the open investigation, materials from
the investigation file were published in the media - a segment from the
security video that allegedly documented the incident, as well as the
results of polygraph tests of some of the suspects.The publication of the
materials from the investigation file sparked public outrage and sharp
criticism. In response, the previous Military Advocate General ordered a
preliminary examination headed by the Deputy Military Advocate General and
an assisting team, aimed at locating those responsible for the leak. On
August 11, 2024, the Military Advocate General appeared before the Knesset's
Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and addressed the investigation,
including the publication of the materials.On October 17, 2024, petitions
were filed to the High Court of Justice against the Military Advocate
General's decision to suffice with the aforementioned preliminary
examination. In the petition, the petitioners sought to open a criminal
investigation regarding the leak, and at the very least to remove the
conduct of the preliminary examination from the hands of the Military
Advocate's Office and the Military Police Investigative Unit.In parallel,
the criminal proceedings continued. During the months of December 2024 and
January 2025, five of the reserve soldiers were summoned to hearings before
the Military Advocate General and the prosecution team, prior to the filing
of an indictment.

Meanwhile, on January 29, 2025, the Deputy Military Advocate General
appeared before the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee and
addressed the actions taken in the framework of the examination to locate
the person responsible for leaking the materials.On February 19, 2025, the
Military Advocate General decided to file an indictment for violent offenses
against the five.In September 2025, the findings of the examination team
were presented to the High Court of Justice, and it was argued in them that
it is not possible to trace the entity responsible for the leak.On October
29, 2025, in light of new information received on the matter, an
investigation by the Israel Police was opened regarding the aforementioned
leak and the information provided about it in various frameworks, including
to the Knesset and the Supreme Court. In the framework of the ongoing
investigation, suspicions are attributed to officers in the Military
Advocate's Office, and in particular to the Military Advocate General, of
committing offenses related to the leak itself, to obstructing the
examination, and to providing information in the framework of the various
proceedings related to it.About two days later, the Military Advocate
General requested to end her tenure, while detailing in her resignation
letter that she was the one who ordered the leaking of the materials to a
media entity during the investigation. Following this, the Military Advocate
General, her deputy, and several additional officers in the Military
Advocate's Office were suspended from their positions.Concurrently, during
the month of October 2025, in the framework of the deal for the release of
the hostages, the security detainee was released and returned to the Gaza
Strip.On November 13, 2025, the defendants' attorneys argued in the
framework of a reminder hearing at the military court that the indictment
should be canceled and the charges withdrawn. The military court also
addressed this in its decision, noting that - "During the session, the
defense attorneys raised weighty arguments, which it is advisable that be
considered by the incoming Military Advocate General."Upon the entry of the
Military Advocate General into office, several discussions were held under
his leadership, in which the prosecution team headed by the new Chief
Military Prosecutor presented the case, including the various developments
that occurred in the proceedings since the filing of the indictment.
Subsequently, the defendants' attorneys requested to meet with the Military
Advocate General and present to him their arguments for canceling the
indictment, inter alia in light of the aforementioned developments. The
Military Advocate General agreed to this, and met with the attorneys during
the months of January and February 2026.Following the aforementioned
meetings, several discussions were held, in which the Military Advocate
General and the prosecution team were required to consider all the evidence
and circumstances, including the evidentiary basis at the current point in
time and the possibility of establishing the conviction of the defendants on
the basis of this basis; various legal arguments also relating to the
justification for continuing the proceedings; as well as difficulties in
managing the case that may arise along the way.

The Decision to Cancel the IndictmentAfter considering all the relevant
considerations, including the arguments raised before him, the existing
evidentiary material at the present time, the procedural aspects and the
chances of conviction, the Military Advocate General decided to order the
cancellation of the indictment filed in the matter of the five defendants in
the "Sde Teiman" affair.Due to the importance of the matter, and the public
interest in full transparency in decision-making on this matter, the reasons
underlying the decision will be presented below in summary.A. Evidentiary
BasisThe decision to file an indictment relied on several evidentiary
anchors - the testimony of the security detainee, the security video that
continuously documents the detention area at the time of the act and
afterward, and medical documents regarding the detainee's condition after
the incident.On one hand, the evidentiary material in the case presented a
serious and disturbing picture regarding the acts of the defendants. On the
other hand, on the evidentiary level, the evidentiary picture was complex
from the outset.The security video does not present an unequivocal picture
of the charges attributed to the defendants. The vast majority of the
defendants' actions are hidden by shields. The video alone, certainly in
combination with the defense arguments, does not clearly and irrefutably
present serious acts of violence at the level required for a criminal
conviction, and this as distinguished from the use of force against
resistance during a search.Indeed, the alleged charges could have received
reinforcement from the detainee's testimony, in combination with the medical
documents. However, the detainee's testimony was also not free of
difficulties since there were changes in his versions to the various parties
regarding the circumstances of his injury.However, in October 2025, the
security detainee was released to the Gaza Strip in the framework of the
outline for the release of the hostages. This new circumstance fundamentally
changes the evidentiary basis and makes it difficult to prove significant
parts of the indictment.

In the complex evidentiary circumstances of the case, and in the absence of
certainty regarding the ability to have the security detainee testify and
cross-examine him, there is also harm to the defendants' possibility of a
fair trial. This is because the defense arguments regarding his testimony,
which were raised by the defendants' attorneys, may not be properly
clarified.In these circumstances, the Military Advocate General and the
prosecution team believed that there is a significant difficulty in
establishing the charges in the case at the required criminal level, based
on the existing evidentiary basis. In addition, the combination of several
circumstances that will be detailed below justifies the cancellation of the
indictment.B. Defense from Justice ArgumentsIn addition to what has been
said so far regarding the evidentiary basis, it was found that in our case
there is a unique and exceptional cluster of circumstances that clearly
establishes arguments of the type "defense from justice". The purpose of
this defense is to prevent a situation in which filing an indictment or
conducting the criminal proceedings stands in substantial contradiction to
principles of justice and legal fairness, and it sometimes justifies,
according to the law, the cancellation of an indictment.The Supreme Court
has long held that conduct on the part of the authority that causes harm to
the sense of justice or legal fairness may justify the cancellation of an
indictment. This, whether done intentionally, whether negligently, whether
from malicious motives, and even if done from innocent motives.In May 2025,
a report on the affair was broadcast on the investigative program "Zman
Emet". In the framework of the program, a senior investigator who is part of
the investigation team was interviewed, and during it, he addressed
directly, in detail and explicitly, the evidence collected in the framework
of the investigation. The public and explicit publication of the evidence,
while the proceedings regarding the defendants are still pending,
substantially harms the defendants' right to a fair trial.Secondly, and as
mentioned above, in October 2025, a criminal investigation was opened by the
Israel Police regarding the leaking of investigation materials to the media,
regarding the obstruction of the examination to check the source of the
leak, and regarding the provision of information in the framework of the
various proceedings related to it, including the judicial proceedings at the
High Court of Justice. These acts were conducted in parallel to the conduct
of the hearings for the defendants and the decision to file the
indictment.These exceptional circumstances, which the Supreme Court also
noted their exceptionality and unprecedented nature (see the words of the
Honorable Deputy President Solberg in HCJ 74997-08-25, and the words of the
Honorable Justice Willner in HCJ 3545-11-25); constitute a significant
deviation from the standards expected of the law enforcement authorities in
the IDF, and certainly from those at their head.

Without addressing all aspects of the aforementioned acts, and with a
focused view on the conduct of the criminal proceedings in the matter of the
five defendants in the affair - these events have significantly harmed their
right to a fair trial and the sense of justice and fairness required to
underlie any criminal proceeding, in a manner that goes to the root of this
proceeding and justifies giving significant weight to arguments of the type
"defense from justice".C. The Level of Case ManagementIn addition, the
investigation of the leak and the events related to it may lead to the
prolongation of the proceedings also in this proceeding in a way that will
further harm the defendants' right to a fair trial.Although it is a separate
investigation conducted in the civilian enforcement system, the products of
the police investigation are expected to constitute relevant investigation
materials in the present case, and can establish legal and factual arguments
also in favor of the defendants.The matters were explicitly raised also in
the recent decision of the military court. In the framework of their request
to receive investigation materials, the defendants requested to review the
documents of the examination team headed by the previous Deputy Military
Advocate General.This request was submitted before the start of the
investigation regarding the Military Advocate General. When the military
court was required to address this request, in its decision of February 26,
2026, the President of the District Military Court held that:"Indeed, on the
face of it, the findings of the leak investigation touch the core of the
[defense from justice] argument, and may be relevant and assist the defense
in establishing the defense from justice claim. At this stage the
investigation has not yet been completed and the military prosecution,
naturally, is excluded from it. Accordingly, and for the time being, it is
not possible to hold a substantive discussion on the request."This decision
is certainly also true for the police investigation materials regarding the
Military Advocate General and the personnel of the Military Advocate's
Office.It has already been held in case law that expected prolongation of
proceedings, given the evidentiary harm that may arise and the harm to legal
arguments derived from it, should also be considered in relation to the
question of filing an indictment, all the more so in the decision on
continuing the conduct of judicial proceedings. Therefore, this procedural
consideration as well adds to the existing complexities in continuing the
conduct of the proceedings.

Summary of MattersIn light of the evidentiary developments since the filing
of the indictment and the exceptional circumstances as detailed above, it is
appropriate that the authority re-examine its position as required of it, in
view of the public interest in its broad sense and the right to a fair trial
of every person facing criminal charges.After examining all the
considerations, the evidence and the new circumstances, including - the
existing evidentiary basis and the release of the security detainee to Gaza;
the circumstances relating to the conduct of the enforcement authorities
throughout the proceedings; the publication of evidence in the framework of
a media interview; and the procedural difficulty to advance the proceedings
as created in the circumstances of the matter - the Military Advocate
General decided to order the cancellation of the indictment.And after these
words:The role of the Military Advocate's Office is to enable the IDF to
fulfill its missions, and alongside that to enforce the law against those
who act contrary to the law.All the personnel of the law enforcement system
in the IDF, in the Military Advocate's Office and in the Military Police
Investigative Unit, have done and will continue to do everything in their
power to fulfill this mission. As in routine, so also in emergency and in
the complex days of the war. They do this out of a sense of mission,
dedication and professionalism.The resilience of the IDF is based inter alia
on its commitment to act according to the law, and to handle events that
deviate from IDF values also with criminal tools where there is
justification for it.The Military Advocate's Office, under the leadership of
the Military Advocate General, will continue to do its work faithfully, for
the IDF and the State of Israel, and all this without fear of
non-substantive criticism and attacks against public servants, and out of a
sense of responsibility for the mission entrusted to it, with integrity,
objectivity and professionalism.