Public outrage / The court itself is guilty

Only someone who has had to face a perfect stranger in the form of a police officer and recount over and over again the story of her or his sexual assault can understand what it feels like to be a victim.

The feelings of shame, aversion, guilt and repulsion can only be understood by someone who has had to answer such questions as: "Where were your underpants? Did you resist? Did you scream? Did he touch your genitals? Did he penetrate? Did he ejaculate?"

This is the ordeal the complainant known as A. from the Tourism Ministry was put through, when she told police about the two alleged instances of rape she accuses former president Moshe Katsav of perpetrating when she worked for him at the ministry.

She described to the detectives how he fondled her breasts. She recounted what he said in late-night conversations when he telephoned her at home and how he would stroke her legs.

But she had difficulty answering the detectives when they asked her if she had ever seen or felt Katsav climaxing. She didn't quite recall what words he used or where he put his hands at the time. And there are the evidential difficulties that guided Attorney General Menachem Mazuz in accepting the plea bargain proposed by Katsav's attorneys.

In the state's reply to the petitions against the deal, it is said that the evidence in the case would make it difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Katsav used force against A. and therefore Katsav could not be prosecuted for rape. And so all that remained of A.'s serious allegations were fondling, attempts to kiss her on the lips and the caressing of her legs. Small wonder the deal is the focus of such public outrage.

Mazuz claims the indictment which he intends to submit tomorrow is serious enough, as it holds Katsav guilty of sexual harassment and performing indecent acts. But this will not serve to dissipate the feeling that he and his office caved in to pressure from Katsav's lawyers, and preferred them to the good of the complainants and the public interest of sending a strong message to sex offenders and to those who use their clout to perform such offenses.

After releasing a draft indictment containing the word "rape," anything less than that will pale in comparison and give rise to suspicions of a cover-up. It is hard to fathom why Mazuz, having admitted that he has enough evidence to strike a plea bargain, refrains from presenting the evidence in a court of law - as the public interest so clearly dictates.

The justices were mistaken in clinging to the almost technical excuse of not having sufficient grounds to intervene in the attorney general's decision. Their ruling compromises the public interest.

The result has been that Katsav received a sensationalist trial in the media, instead of a criminal trial conducted by professionals, and assisted by attorneys and defense lawyers looking into the sworn testimonies of witnesses. In the framework of the plea bargain, Katsav has agreed to confess to deeds which he says he never perpetrated.

For the time being, it seems the truth will not be revealed and justice will not be seen or heard. All that will remain of this affair is a further erosion in the standing of victims of sexual assault, who will be left to reflect on the tailoring of Katsav's plea bargain when they deliberate on whether to complain against the person who has assaulted them.