Conclusion

1. In accordance with the information and data we received, we have not heard or received any evidence or proof, incriminating Patriarch Ireneos of knowing about a deal before its being signed or during the signing of and until the flight of Papadimas from the country.

2. He did not participate in the proceedings at any stage.

3. He did not receive any amount from any deal, despite the fact that all the payments were made to the account of the Patriarchate.

4. The deals were never presented to the Synod of the Holy Tomb Brotherhood, because the Patriarch was not aware of them.

Therefore the Synod did not endorse them, a matter which renders these deals legally invalid so they remain incomplete.

5. A very well calculated plan unfolded before us. It was schemed by a number of clerics opposing Ireneos in collaboration with Israeli Extreme Right Wingers. Their interest converged in the aim of getting rid of Ireneos step by step.

6. a) The behavior of the buyers' tenant was not in good faith. On the contrary, it is clear from the above incidents that the buyer acted in ill-faith, resorting to illegal methods to extort the Patriarch and force him to cooperate in concluding the deal.

b) The buying party did not declare the deal to the tax authority within the legal period specified by the law-45 days as of signing the deal. It kept the said deal in secret, something which constitutes a criminal breach on one hand and adds to the ill-will underlying this deal, and the timing of its utilization. There are objective indications that there was illegal cooperation that may amount to criminal violation between the Land Tax Department and the buyers. This may explain the concealment and refusal of the Department to submit the declarations and their attachments to the Patriarch or his representative until lodging the petition with the High Court.

7. The party that concluded the new deals with Papadimas was in knowledge of all deals. It tried to use them, as claimed by its representative to improve and amend its stands.

However, it is unreasonable for a sane man to sign or approve or participate in the signing of four deals for four sites for two million US dollars, at a time when there were offers for amounts bigger than this amount in return for only one deal, a matter which supports and enhances the conclusion that the Patriarch was not involved in the said deals.

8. The Patriarchate is liable for all the sums transferred to its account as a result of these deals, and the damages and the expense which that entails.

9. a) In accordance with the applicable law in East Jerusalem, Patriarch Ireneos is still the legitimate Patriarch enjoying full powers.

b. The actions of the opposition to the Patriarch are deemed null and void, because the post of the Patriarch has not been vacant. Hence the action of this group is legally senseless.

Should Israel decide to rescind its recognition of Patriarch Ireneos, this would give rise to the Israeli claim that there is a vacancy in discharging the affairs of the church, because Ireneos is no longer a Patriarch on one hand, and on the other, the procedures of electing an acting Patriarch should be repeated anew, then, the doors would be open anew for those who vie for this post, in accordance with pure Israeli criteria and dictations.