7a) When the witness was asked, at the beginning of his cross-examination, to refer to Appendix N/5, he clarified that he did not remember when he edited it, but knew that it was made after the trial began, and "this table (N/5-A.S.) is the government's position regarding the score that should be given in light of the data in the tables." He prepared Appendix N/5 indirectly on the basis of a government decision establishing the principle of comparison between the salaries of career soldiers and those of police officers and prison guards, which gave effect, on January 24, 1979, to the decision of the Ministerial Committee on Wages of January 22, 1989 (N/3); b) In the continuation of his cross-examination, the witness clarified that in light of Government Decision N/3, work procedures were established - "They included, among other things, the establishment of a follow-up committee, and in the establishment of the follow-up committee there was a work procedure, for example, on the subject of the levels of activity that are employed according to the military criteria. which is N/4 according to which we work in the monitoring committee and thus we determine the weighing and eligibility of the activity levels"; c) When the witness was asked in the continuation of his cross-examination to clarify on the basis of what the salary of the career personnel was determined, he replied: "The salary of the career personnel is based on about 1979, to the best
of my ability, determined in parallel with the salary of civil servants. Since about 1979, salaries in the IDF have been determined, with the basis being the combined salary in the corresponding ranks and ranks that are determined from time to time in the civil service, and on which there are additions, some of which exist in the state and in the army, and beyond that there are several additions unique to the army, including this increase in the level of activity. After every agreement in the civil service, there is a discussion with the deputy commissioner of wages, and in recent years it has been with me, and then we see the collective agreement at the appropriate rank and rankings in the country and determine which parts of it should be activated in the IDF and how. Beyond that, there are problems that are unique to the army that we are discussing. The unique additions given to career soldiers can change regardless of changes in the civilian sector." In the hearings held by the witness, "I am attended by representatives of the Personnel Unit, representatives of the Budget Department of the Ministry of Defense and the Financial Advisor to the Chief of Staff"; d) When the witness was asked whether it was true, in light of the fact that the supplement was given to the prison guards in Gaza and to the prison guards in Judea and Samaria on different dates, and that the linkage decided by the government (between the IDF, the police and the IPS) was not maintained, he replied that it was not a linkage, but a comparison, and it is incorrect to say that the comparison was not maintained. "The significance of the comparison in accordance with N/3 on this issue of the addition of activity levels to the issue is the application of the same criteria in the IDF, the police and the IPS and the examination of eligibility in accordance with those criteria. It is possible that in a certain place, the date of application in which that unit meets the criteria is different from the date when in another unit it meets the same criteria. But the significance of the decision is that they will meet uniform criteria." To the question - "I understand that you do not have data that indicates that there was room for not an accurate comparison on the dates of application", the witness replied - "Certainly there is. N/5Details exactly why while applying the comparison, i.e., applying the same criteria, there is also no place to give an additional activity A to a prison in Judea and Samaria. As I mentioned earlier, the special additions in the IDF, even in the police in light of special needs, the commissioner of wages or his deputy is under their usual authority, and not by virtue of the comparison decision, can decide on one addition or another beyond what the decision requires."
- When the witness was asked in his cross-examination why, by virtue of N/5, there is still no reason to give a supplement to the prison guards of Judea and Samaria, his answer was - "The table of criteria detailed in N/5 determines for both the army and the police and the Prison Service how to determine eligibility for an additional level of activity. At the bottom of the page of the appendix there is the score that qualifies for each activity level. We check the criteria according to the facts on the ground and give the appropriate score, and we also checked the eligibility of Judea and Samaria prison guards, with what appears in the scoring column not only my position but also the position of the Ministry of Police, the Prison Service and the Ministry of Finance."
9a) From the examination of Ben/1 - a document dated February 14, 1988 to the Director General of the Ministry of Police by Mr. Yaakov Danon, the Wage Commissioner in the Ministry of Finance during the relevant period, it appears