The High Court of Justice will not give its ruling on Monday on when the testimonies of the Winograd Committee investigating the Second Lebanon War are to be made public.

This comes after the Winograd Committee informed the High Court on Sunday that it would like to begin publishing the key testimonies in roughly one month, two weeks after it releases its interim report.

The High Court had given the Committee until Sunday night to inform the justices when the investigative panel believes the testimonies should be made public.

	Advertisement

The committee will first publish parts of the testimonies of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz, and former Israel Defense Forces chief of staff Dan Halutz.

The publication schedule was approved by a majority of the committee members, although some of the members did object. The committee decided to publish those parts of the testimonies that are "appropriate to publish."

The committee also said that in the coming month it would complete "all the necessary actions to prepare these testimonies for publication."

This decision was made Sunday by a panel of five judges headed by Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch.Throughout the hearing, the panel of judges heavily criticized the prosecutors who represent the committee for their "dramatic change of heart", since they had announced over a month ago that the testimony of the three would be released in the upcoming days.

"I had trouble understanding your explanation," Beinisch said. "We did not issue a court order on the release of the testimonies because we believed your statements. Today, you are totally backing out of these statements. You changed your mind simply because something didn't sound right to one of the witnesses."

Beinisch was apparently referring to the ruckus that followed the publication of excerpts of Vice Premier Shimon Peres' testimony, in which Peres reportedly stated that had he been prime minister, he would not have gone to war in Lebanon in July 2006.

Earlier on Sunday, Beinisch decided to expand the panel from three to five justices, and to head the panel herself.

The state attorney requested the expansion Saturday following deliberations on a petition filed by MK Zahava Gal-On. The lawmaker petitioned the High Court of Justice to order the committee to release the protocols immediately, in the spirit of the state's unfulfilled pledge that it would publish them before Passover.

The state said the panel of three judges was too small, citing the ramifications and complexity of the issue. Attorney Dafna Holtz-Lechner, representing Gal-On, opposed the expansion of the panel. "The sole reason for the request is the state's reluctance to abide by the court's directives," she said.

Gal-On said it was "unacceptable that after four months of deliberations, the state attorney decides to request an expanded panel just because it is displeased with the court's ruling." Gal-On accused the state of mounting another attempt at "foot-dragging and contempt."

The committee's chairman, Judge (ret.) Eliyahu Winograd, submitted Friday his signed response to Gal-On's petition. Winograd reiterated claims he had presented before the High Court of Justice.

Winograd repeated his objection to the release of the protocols on the grounds that it would impair the committee's ability to function and might delay the publication of the interim report, due by the end of April.

"Should the court rule in favor of the petition, it would force the committee to act against its discretion, binding it to a timetable it cannot keep," Winograd wrote.

He maintained that the committee had abided by the court's decision to publish the protocols, until it met with unexpected difficulties. These, according to Winograd, include testimonies that cannot be published due to censorship limitations, and other testimonies which might "misinform the public." He offered to demonstrate the nature of the testimonies before the court in a closed session.

Winograd revealed in his response that the state's aim to release the testimonies heard by the committee before Passover "had been a mistake." He claimed also that Gal-On's petition for the release of the minutes of the committee's protocols was an attempt to revise the court's ruling on her previous petition on the matter.

Following her first petition, the court ordered the committee members to release the protocols before the publication of their final report. Only later did Gal-On petition for the release of protocols before the interim report. "Gal-On requests are in blatant contrast to the court's previous ruling," he wrote.

Winograd added that immediately following the court's ruling on Gal-On's first petition for the release of the testimonies, he addressed Attorney General Menachem Mazuz. Winograd wrote he wanted to consult Mazuz about the formation of a team that would prepare the protocols for release.

According to Winograd, Mazuz's aides were in favor of submitting the protocols for review by the bodies surveyed in the testimonies. However, the initiative was eventually abandoned because of concerns that such a procedure might delay and encumber the procedure. The testimonies were therefore submitted for military censorship only.