On March 12th Israel’s military prosecutors dropped charges against five soldiers accused of sexually assaulting a Palestinian detainee at Sde Teiman, a detention facility established after Hamas’s attack of October 7th 2023.

For AOAV, the decision was striking less for its outcome than for how unsurprising that outcome was.

What we know is that the alleged assault was severe. According to the indictment, the Palestinian detainee was dragged along the floor, subjected to electric shocks and penetrated with an object, leaving him hospitalised with fractured ribs and a perforated rectum. Some of the incident was recorded on video. Prosecutors nonetheless concluded that the footage was insufficient to secure a conviction and that the victim, since returned to Gaza, could not reliably testify.

The case collapsed and with it any claim by the Israeli military of having a functioning judicial system.

This is not a surprise, for those who track Israel’s system of military self-investigation, this was less a shock than a confirmation. Last year, we reviewed 52 publicly reported cases in which the Israel Defence Forces acknowledged investigating alleged violations in Gaza and the West Bank. In 88% of them, the inquiries stalled, disappeared into opaque internal processes or were closed without findings of wrongdoing.

Only one produced a prison sentence.

A pattern, not an aberration
The political backdrop to the Sde Teiman case cannot be ignored. The soldiers’ arrest in 2024 prompted protests from far-right activists, including a storming of the detention facility. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu criticised the investigation and praised the accused as “heroic fighters.” The military’s most senior legal officer eventually resigned; not because the alleged abuse had occurred on her watch, but because she had authorised leaking the video footage that exposed it. The scandal consumed the official who allowed accountability to function, rather than those who may have prevented it.

So we have it. An allegation surfaces; the IDF announces an internal inquiry; months pass; the process concludes, if it concludes at all, with a reference to “professional failures” or “unfortunate errors”; criminal prosecution almost never follows.

Israel maintains that its investigative approach is rigorous. They say that wartime operations inevitably produce tragic outcomes that fall short of criminality. And military officials argue that internal review is essential to discipline while preserving operational independence.

These claims are not frivolous. But the record makes them harder to credit.

The complementarity problem
The implications extend beyond Israel’s own courts. International criminal law is built on the principle of complementarity: the International Criminal Court defers to national jurisdictions that genuinely investigate alleged war crimes. The system presupposes that domestic mechanisms are credible and independent. Where they are not, the ICC’s mandate activates.

The cumulative record of Israeli military investigations, which are delayed, opaque, and overwhelmingly exculpatory, makes that presupposition increasingly difficult to sustain.

If allegations as serious and as well-documented as those at Sde Teiman cannot proceed to trial, the investigative system starts to resemble something other than justice. It begins to look like a procedural buffer: active enough to assert domestic jurisdiction, ineffective enough to foreclose accountability.

The Sde Teiman decision is significant not because it resolves the fate of five soldiers, but because it reinforces a conclusion suggested by years of evidence: that Israel’s military justice system is functioning, but not as advertised. The ICC should take note.