The Tel Aviv District Court rejected on Monday a suit filed against the state by a former Israel Defense Forces interrogator known as “Captain George,” accepting the state’s contention that the statute of limitations had expired.

The plaintiff, whose real name can’t be published, was one of the interrogators responsible for questioning Mustafa Dirani, a senior official in the Lebanese Shi’ite militia Amal, whom Israel captured in 1994 because it believed he had information on the fate of missing air force navigator Ron Arad. After Dirani complained that George had subjected him to violence and even raped him, George was ousted from the intelligence corps unit where he served. George subsequently sued the state for NIS 5.5 million, arguing that he had been fired unjustly, and that this caused him great harm.

The state contended that since George was fired back in 2002, his suit was belated. George countered that the suit only became possible in 2011, when new evidence was uncovered by Channel 2 television’s investigative reporting program “Uvda.” The show aired tapes of Dirani’s interrogation which showed clearly that an interrogation conducted while Dirani was naked was presided over not by George, but by an officer with the rank of colonel.

Moreover, George argued, he had previously petitioned the High Court of Justice to get hold of the tapes, but the state had concealed their existence and given him other tapes instead. Thus not only was it impossible for him to have filed suit earlier, but the state had engaged in deception and deceit to prevent him from doing so, he charged.

Yet even though Judge Dalia Ganot slammed the state for concealing the tapes and submitting a false affidavit to the High Court, she nevertheless accepted its contention that the statute of limitations had expired.

“I can’t conclude my verdict without expressing my dissatisfaction with the state’s behavior,” she wrote. “It’s impossible to ignore the fact that the plaintiff complained about the concealment of evidence and even took legal steps in an attempt to discover it. In the course of these proceedings, the state filed an affidavit to the High Court in which it claimed it had no additional evidence. It turns out that this affidavit was not truthful, in the best case, and in the worst case, it was a false affidavit, a fact that is exceedingly grave.”

After George petitioned the High Court, Ganot noted, the state gave him 46 tapes of Dirani’s interrogation, but not the most important one. When the crucial tape finally came to light, the Justice Ministry said, “This is the first time the investigative agencies, the military prosecution and the prosecution … have been exposed to the existence of this tape, and in light of this discovery, they will consider what legal steps to take.”

Ganot termed this response “astounding, to say the least.” The state, she pointed out, hadn’t claimed that the tape was a forgery. “But if it’s an authentic tape, then it was made by the state itself, and if so, how did it not know of its existence? The state has the answers. This conduct leaves a harsh and unpleasant feeling, especially since we are talking about the state’s conduct toward the state's legal authorities."