The office of the Military Advocate General is considering petitioning the High Court of Justice against the Winograd Committee examining the Second Lebanon War, because the committee has no plans to issue warning letters to any individual who may be harmed by the publication of its final report, expected in the fall.

The Winograd Committee has not made a final decision on the matter which has many in the defense establishment worried but the panel is inclined not to issue warning letters out of concern that such action will greatly lengthen its work, and could possibly postpone the
publication of its final conclusions.

	Advertisement

Warning letters to those touched by the committee's conclusions will allow them to review the evidence in question, cross-examine witnesses, and submit arguments to the committee, both oral and written.

Sources close to the committee have said recently that the publication of its final report is expected to be made in October.

The Military Advocate General's defense attorney's office is not demanding that warning letters be sent, but is asking for a promise to safeguard the rights of the officers who maybe harmed by the report, if the committee does make reference to specific individuals.

Essentially, the defense attorney would like a guarantee that it will be allowed to review the evidence, cross examine witnesses, and submit arguments to the committee.

In early July, Military Advocate General's chief defense attorney, Colonel Orna David, sent a letter to the Winograd Committee asking that warning letters be sent to the relevant persons, if it intended to issue personal comments that may be harmful to individuals involved.

The chairman of the committee, retired judge Elyahu Winograd, reponded to Colonel David, but as far as is known, did not commit to any particular action.

Sources at the Military Advocate General told Haaretz on Monday that they are still analyzing Winograd's response, and that unless  as it seems  the committee does not alter its stance, they may have no choice but to file a petition with the High Court.

The defense attorney's office at Military Advocate General uses the services of senior attorneys on reserve duty, and officers who had a central role in the war are represented by them.

In the interim report of the Winograd Committee, released to the public April 30, there is a chapter that deals with what constitutes "fairness."

Some have interpreted this to mean that the committee considers the interim report a justified warning to all those who may be harmed by its conclusions.

Apparently, such a warning may save the committee from issuing individual warning letters, even though there are different legal interpretations on this matter.

A similar situation occured in April. The defense attorney's office at Military Advocate General, along with attorneys for GOC Home Front Command Yitzhak Gershon, petitioned the High Court against the intention of State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss to publish a synopsis of the report of his office on the command's conduct during the war.

Gershon and other Home Front officers were upset that they had not been permitted to review the content of the report, which was highly critical of their conduct during the war.

In the end Lindenstrauss backed down, but the move by the commander of the Home Front and the Military Advocate General's defense attorney's office was considered highly unusual and caused a great deal of embarrassment in the IDF, particularly because of the showdown between a
senior officer and the state comptroller.

Senior sources at the General Staff were highly critical of the decision to file a petition with the High Court, and said that this may create the impression that the IDF is trying to avoid an in depth evaluation of the lessons of the Second Lebanon War.

If a petition to the High Court is filed against Winograd, it may be done not on behalf of a specific senior officer but on behalf of the Military Advocate General's defense attorney's office representing all the officers who may be harmed by the conclusions in the final report.