Upon the resumption of the hearing on 15 August 1999, it became clear that the police had not conducted an identification procession. Counsel for the State argued that there are real signs distinguishing between the respondent and the other person who was arrested, and that the prosecution has good evidence linking the respondent to the incident. The court therefore turned to hear the arguments of the parties in the motion for detention until the end of the proceedings, noting that it would then determine its position on the issue of identification. At the end of the hearing, the court extended the respondent's detention until another decision.
Three days later, on August 18, 1999, the Honorable Justice Ophir-Tom issued a comprehensive decision, acceding to the state's request and ordering the respondent's detention until the end of the proceedings (hereinafter: The decision to detain the respondent until the end of the proceedings).
- The respondent appealed to the Supreme Court against the District Court's decision to detain him until the end of the proceedings. In the framework of the appeal, the respondent raised a new alibi claim regarding his location at the time the offense was committed, according to which at exactly the same time he was staying at the home of a student he was mentoring as part of the Perach (mentoring project), in contrast to his previous claim that he stayed at the camper's home only until 7:30 p.m. The parties agreed to postpone the date of the hearing, in order to allow for further investigative actions, in light of the respondent's new alibi claim and the submission of a call output from a cell phone registered in the name of the respondent's mother, which according to the respondent was in his possession at the time.
Indeed, additional investigative actions were carried out. Subsequently, the respondent requested that the appeal that was submitted to the Supreme Court be deleted, and on October 5, 1999, he filed a request with the District Court for reconsideration. On October 10, 1999, the respondent's counsel approached the State Attorney's Office and proposed an alternative to detention, and the next day, at a hearing held in the District Court, the parties agreed to release the respondent to house arrest under restrictive conditions, and the court granted the request. In summary, the respondent was detained for almost three months, from July 16, 1999, until October 11, 1999.