AG: High Court petitions by MK, IDF against war probe premature
Mazuz: Petitions should be rejected because Winograd Committee hasn't determined who it will affect.
By Yuval Yoaz Tags: Menachem Mazuz Second Lebanon War Winograd reportAttorney General Menachem Mazuz told the High Court of Justice on Sunday that the petitions filed by the Israel Defense Forces and former MK Avraham Poraz against the Winograd Committee should be rejected on the basis that they are premature.
The petitions deal with the scope of the right to respond that must be guaranteed for those adversely affected by the committee's final report on the Second Lebanon War.
In a statement presented to the High Court by the State Prosecution, Mazuz said the petitions are premature because the committee itself has said that it has yet to determine who could be adversely affected by its conclusions, and to what extent.
A High Court panel headed by Chief Justice Dorit Beinisch is scheduled to hold a hearing on the petitions Monday.
The prosecution also said the Mazuz should not have been asked to respond to the petitions, given that he does not represent the Winograd Committee nor is the panel under his authority.
Nonetheless, the attorney general recommended that the right to respond guaranteed to those affected by the government-appointed committee be similar to the rights guaranteed for a state commission of inquiry.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
The position taken by the Attorney General in IDF?s and former MK Poras petition to High Court concerning possible ?personal damages? by expected statements / judgment of the Winograd Investigating Commission is very difficult to understand and are open to be interpreted as a change of the AG?s legal position at the time of establishing this very commission. AG Mazuz was at his full official legal authority at that time when Prime Minister Ehud Olmert LLB and that time Defense Minister Amir Peretz decided a special appointment of the Winograd Commission with its very specific terms and limitations. - Here if AG was not consulted / included in the preparation of these special conditions and did not get actively involve using his legal authority / capacity we are confronted with a extremely serious problem. Here the AG had all the legal ways open to interfere, to stop, to insists upon his statutory rights and in a negative position to approach the High Court for a final binding decision. Such an action was not made known. N o w he makes his considered juridical legal opinion known to the High Court in the form of ???rejected on the basis that they are premature?.? as the committee itself said that it had not yet determined who could be adversely affected by its conclusions if any, owing to commissions members not yet declared relevant position. B U T the AG recommended at the given time to the High Court to retain the rights of respond, to avoid possible advertive committee statement affecting particular petitioners. - To use very plain language, the AG favors / consents with the rights of possibly censored persons in the report to be given all legal rights including cross examination etc prior to committee?s final publications. Here one does not talk about symantic neither one could speak about ?sin of ommission? as the basis for the committee?s finally report are based on documentation and lengthy interviews with question and clarifying answers. - Of course the AG is entitled to his interpretations / legal views even if someone could call these now present views as double talk or a complete change of his original legal approach unless we confront here some omission at the time of writing the commission?s terms of references.