Getting to the root of the Ramon case

The trial of Vice Premier Haim Ramon is not leaving the public agenda, and rightfully so. The deeper we delve into the circumstances in which the complaint against him was filed, investigated and deliberated in court, the more troubling the questions that arise.

Already at the time of the trial, the judges expressed surprise that wiretaps conducted during the investigation had been concealed from the defense attorneys. For this reason, a retired judge, Shalom Brenner, was asked to examine the material, and his conclusions raised additional questions. The justice minister also asked for an opinion from another retired judge, Vardi Zeiler, after Brenner had determined that "the investigation of the minister was conducted with considerable negligence."

Zeiler's opinion is a very severe document, which casts a shadow over the conduct of the legal authorities. In Zeiler's view, the defectiveness of the proceedings was detrimental to Ramon's defense; his attorneys were unaware during the questioning of the complainant in court that her phone had been tapped. While judge Brenner determined that senior officials in the State Prosecutor's Office and police officials had not acted as required - saying that they should have known that wiretaps had been conducted but failed to investigate this matter properly - Zeiler pins most of the blame on senior police officers.

Zeiler's conclusions raise a serious suspicion that this was not a case of coincidental or negligent concealment of facts, but rather concealment that might have derived from "a personal interest" not to expose the immoderate police pressure exerted on the complainant to convince her to submit the complaint.

The words of Brenner and Zeiler - both judges with extensive experience - are extraordinary in their severity. In light of the fact that this matter has yet to be investigated by an entity endowed with enforcement authorities, and due to the incomplete investigation into the question of malice in concealing the material, a government committee of review should be appointed, as Zeiler recommended, that would be authorized to conduct an exhaustive investigation that gets to the root of the matter.

Zeiler believes that the establishment of a state commission of inquiry is designed for other matters and that it is possible in this case to suffice with a government committee of review. The advantage of a state commission of inquiry is that its members are appointed by the president of the Supreme Court and not by ministers whose purview includes the matter under investigation.

The ministers of justice and public security, who would be authorized to appoint a review committee under the Law on Government, could win public confidence by assigning the role of committee chairman to a senior (retired) judge who is also a prominent expert in criminal law, such as former judge Eliezer Goldberg, who also served as state comptroller. The committee chairman would be joined by legal experts from the fields of criminal and constitutional law, who are not current or recent civil servants.

The review committee should not be limited by its letter of appointment and it should complete its work within a few of months. There is a supreme public obligation to clarify and get to the bottom of what appears at this stage to be a serious failure, if not worse, in "the corridors of power" of the police and State Prosecutor's Office, which are entrusted with protecting human dignity and liberty.