Opponents of the plea bargain signed by former president Moshe Katsav achieved a victory on Wednesday when five judges from the High Court of Justice issued an injunction that will require Attorney General Menachem Mazuz to testify before the High Court on why he does not intend to annul the plea bargain reached with Katsav.

The injunction was issued in response to several High Court reservations with the plea agreement. They asked for the attorney general to explain why complainants were not given a hearing, and why Katsav's time in office was not deducted from the statute of limitations, which caused evidence from a number of complainants to be excluded.

Petitioners argued that as the statute of limitations for sexual offenses was largely covered by Katsav's term in office, it should have been counted back in its full length starting from the time Katsav was elected president in 2000 - and not his indictment this year. This would have allowed for the statute of limitations to include earlier complaints the state prosecution disqualified.

	Advertisement

According to Israeli law, the attorney general will have to present his explanations to the High Court within 21 days.

Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch also questioned the prosecution's decision not to charge Katsav with consensual sexual relations through abuse of power, saying the very existence of a sexual relationship between Katsav and A., at the time an employee in his official residence, is evidence of such.

During a court hearing on petitions against the Katsav plea deal, Beinisch pointed to the significant gap between Katsav and A. in terms of seniority, position, and age.

Consensual sexual relations through the abuse of power is a criminal violation and is punishable by up to three years in prison.

According to a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, the charge applies to cases in which the man has direct or indirect authority over the woman. Among other factors, significant gaps in age and seniority can be used to determine that the man abused his power. The ruling determines that even if the woman was the one to initiate the sexual relationship, a court can rule that the man abused his power.

"Why, on the face of it, did you give up on [charging Katsav with] consensual relations through abuse of power?" Beinisch asked Deputy Special Prosecutor Shai Nitzan. "We assume there was an affair. What difference does it make?"

Nitzan responded by saying that the prosecution made the decision based on the fact that not every affair constitutes a crime, adding that the objective evidence - as opposed to Katsav and A.'s respective versions of events - caused the prosecution to be concerned that the court would not convict Katsav of the charge.

A. petitioned the High Court of Justice after Attorney General Menachem Mazuz removed all charges related to her complaints against the former president in the revised indictment, filed in accordance with the plea agreement reached with Katsav. In a move that sparked bitter controversy, Mazuz also removed all rape charges.

Nitzan described the relationship between A. and Katsav as passionate, saying that A. was obsessive and jealous. In addition, Nitzan said the prosecution was convinced that there were intimate relations between Katsav and A., but were divided over the ability to prove full sexual relations. While A. claimed there were full sexual relations, Katsav flatly denied it, and there was no corroborating evidence.

According to Israeli law, full sexual relations are a necessary condition for the charge of consensual sexual relations through abuse of power.

Beinisch responded to Nitzan's argument by saying that the matter was one which should be decided by a court.

Nitzan: Evidence made it difficult to charge Katsav with rape
Nitzan said former Tourism Ministry employee A., whom Katsav was originally accused of raping, did not mention rape in her first statement to police, and only did so when giving a second statement. Nitzan added that her testimony often suggested that Katsav was seeking her consent, for instance when she said: "When the president asked me to unbutton my blouse."

The prosecutor added that there was evidence that made it difficult to charge the former president with rape - the only charge for which the statute of limitations had not yet run out, as A.'s complaints dated to 1998. For instance, A. sent Katsav a Rosh Hashana card full of expressions of love in September 1998, after he allegedly raped her.

"Its true that it makes it difficult, but that is something for the court to decide," said the chief justice in response.

When asked by Beinisch if the prosecution felt that A. was trying to frame Katsav, Nitzan responded: "No, but that isn't the question. You are being asked to nullify the plea agreement, and my argument is, that today trying someone for rape is difficult."

Nitzan also mentioned that fact that there were witnesses who said A. would get ready prior to meeting Katsav, including by putting on lipstick, as well as witnesses who said she threatened revenge once she was fired from the ministry.

The prosecutor added that A. from the Tourism Ministry approached an attorney during the period in which she said Katsav raped her, describing sexual harassment and abuse of power, but not rape.

"There was also a problem regarding the issue of force," added Nitzan. "The force was the slightest of the slight. She sat on the bed, and he knocked her over."