The case of former minister Tzachi Hanegbi, who was indicted over political appointments, has led to alterations to legal terminology in use that could have significant implications in President Moshe Katsav's case.

Until Hanegbi's affair, the state prosecutor or attorney general would "decide" to indict a suspected official "pending a hearing." Following the Hanegbi affair, the state prosecution or attorney general "considers" indicting a suspect, reaching their final decision after the hearing.

The procedure has not changed, only the terminology, to prevent the impression that a decision had been made before the hearing, and that the hearing was intended merely as a formality.

	Advertisement

In Katsav's case the change could be critical. His attorneys said Monday that Katsav would resign as soon as the attorney general "decides" to indict him.

Attorney General Menachem Mazuz is expected to complete processing the file in three to four weeks and approve the draft indictment. He is then expected to release his "decision," pending the hearing, which Katsav is not likely to forgo. However, when Mazuz releases his statement, it will say he is "considering" an indictment pending a hearing, and not that he has decided to indict Katsav.

The Justice Ministry fears Katsav will use the new terminology to argue that Mazuz has not yet made a final decision, and therefore he need not resign. Thus he could put off his resignation for half a year - the period between Mazuz's decision in principle and his final decision after the hearing.

Katsav's attorneys, Professor David Libai and Zion Amir, will ask for three to four months' extension to study all the investigation material against their client and prepare for the hearing. After the hearing a few weeks will pass until Mazuz announces his final decision.

In this situation, Katsav's resignation could take place close to the end of his term, in July 2007.

The Justice Ministry is trying to accelerate the decisions. Public figures' criminal cases usually make several "stops" - the police, the district attorney, the state prosecutor and finally the attorney general. In Katsav's case the various bodies have been asked to act simultaneously.

Consequently, Jerusalem District Attorney Eli Abarbanel and his staff started summing up the case before the end of the police investigation, and Mazuz is reading key testimonies and handling the case together with State Prosecutor Eran Shendar.

Mazuz is examining various indictment possibilities in each of the four affairs Katsav is implicated - sexual offenses, pardons, phone tapping and gifts. Then he will decide whether there is a "reasonable chance of conviction." This criterion will determine whether or not Katsav will be indicted and on what charges.

For example, the evidence may suffice to indict the suspect for an indecent act or illicit consensual sex, but not for the graver crime of rape.

Thus Mazuz may decide not to charge Katsav for rape, but, according to the varying reliability of the testimonies, may choose to charge him with "illicit consensual intercourse." This clause does not necessarily involve the use of physical force.

The maximum penality for this offense is three years in prison. In Katsav's case, the law stipulates that a man who has intercourse with a woman aged 18 or more by abusing his authority in a work relationship, is liable to three years in prison.

Mazuz also has several options to press charges for sexual acts that do not involve penetration. The police recommendation includes indicting Katsav for a "non-consensual indecent act," which entails at least a three-year prison sentence. The penalty for an indecent act by force or by other means of pressure is seven years.

As far as some of the other complainants are concerned, Mazuz is expected to opt for charges of sexual harassment rather than sexual assault.