Court ruling9/9/2026

High Court Permits State Attorney Isman to Handle the Sde Teiman Video Leak Affair

The High Court of Justice rejected the requests for a further hearing on the ruling that State Attorney Amit Isman may be involved in the investigation of the leaked video from Sde Teiman. He must now decide whether to file indictments, on which charges, and against which suspects.

Key facts

•Court: High Court of Justice
•Decision rejecting the requests: September 8, 2026
•Publication date: September 9, 2026
•State Attorney: Amit Isman
•The case number is not specified in the source
•No monetary sums or statute names were specified

Who Petitioned the Court

Knesset member Avichai Boaron and the right-wing organizations Lavi and Choosing Life requested a further hearing. They sought reconsideration of the High Court’s previous ruling before an expanded panel of justices.

What the High Court Decided

The court rejected the requests on September 8, 2026. Justice Daphne Barak-Erez clarified that the previous ruling had not established a new legal precedent that could serve as grounds for a further hearing before an expanded panel.

Who Will Continue Handling the Investigation

Following the court’s rejection of the requests, there is no impediment to Amit Isman’s participation in the investigation. He must determine whether indictments should be filed, which offenses should be charged, and against which suspects proceedings should be pursued. Among the suspects, the source mentions senior officials in the Military Advocate General’s Corps and former Military Advocate General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi.

What the Ruling Still Does Not Determine

The High Court did not rule on the suspects’ guilt and did not order that indictments be filed against them. The source also does not indicate that a final decision has already been made regarding the filing of indictments.

What this means for you

The ruling confirms that Amit Isman may continue to oversee the leak investigation and make decisions regarding possible charges. For ordinary citizens, this means only that the established process for the prosecution to reach a decision remains in place: the rejection of the request for a further hearing does not prove the guilt of those involved and does not replace the criminal process.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings