Last update - 00:00 10/04/2007
State gets 5 days to explain why it won't release key protocols
By Nir Hasson, Haaretz Correspondent
The High Court of Justice on Tuesday granted the state an additional five days to explain why it will not release testimonies given key political leaders to the Winograd Committee investigating the Second Lebanon War.
The committee announced on the eve of Passover that it would not release any more transcripts of witness testimonies on the war - including those of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz and former Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Dan Halutz - and informed the High Court of Justice that it would resume deliberations on the matter only after issuing its interim report, due later this month.
In return, the court ordered the State Prosecution Office to explain by Tuesday April 10 the committee's refusal to release the protocols. On Sunday, the state submitted a request for a seven-day postponement until April 17.
Deputy Supreme Court President Eliezer Rivlin on Tuesday partially accepted the state's request and granted it until Sunday April 15 at 9 A.M. to deliver its explanation. Deliberations on the matter will then be held at 11 A.M.
The committee had requested that the court withdraw its insistence that transcripts of testimonies be made available, arguing that it did not have enough time to both deliberate the issue of the transcripts and prepare the interim report.
The committee wrote in a document filed by attorney Osnat Mendel of the State Prosecutor's Office that it had already followed the court's decision in publishing three testimonies - those of Vice Premier Shimon Peres, former military intelligence chief Amos Malka, and the head of the Emergency Economy Administration, Arnon Ben-Ami.
Several hours later, attorney Dafna Holtz-Lechner filed on behalf of Meretz MK Zahava Gal-On a request for immediate court deliberations for the release of the transcripts.
Rivlin on Tuesday gave no explanation of his decision to grant the delay, though the state had alleged in its petition that the time allotted for an explanation was insufficient.
Related articles