In the 110-page response, the attorney general attributes to the former president crimes of moral turpitude, Katsav's lawyers revealed.
The issue spurred serious disagreement between the Attorney's Office and Katsav's lawyers, who claimed that according to the plea agreement, the offenses Katsav was charged with did not involve moral turpitude.
About half the text of the response addresses the case's complications with evidence - and the testimonies of both complainant A from the President's Residence and complainant A from the Tourism Ministry.
However, Mazuz has requested the High Court of Justice put a gag order on those sections.
In the response, the state objects to any intervention in Mazuz's decisions – both to close the case regarding complainant A (from the President's Residence) and regarding the plea bargain with Katsav.
The state also noted that the complainants had exhausted their rights according to crime victims' rights laws.
Back in July the High Court issued an injunction against the implementation of the plea bargain between Katsav and the State Prosecutor's Office.
Five High Court Justices ruled that the plea bargain, which spares Katsav a jail sentence on sexual assault charges, was too lenient and gave the prosecution 21 days to
justify the arrangement.
The injunction came after rights groups, enraged by the prosecution's decision to drop rape charges against Katsav, had petitioned the court to cancel the plea deal and put Katsav on trial for alleged sex offenses against former female employees.
In its defense, the prosecution told the court that there was not enough evidence to try Katsav for rape. Prosecution delegates told the court that there were gaps in the testimony of the main complainant in the case.