In any event, as I have noted, this issue, even according to my colleague, is not required in the case at hand, so that the matter is more than necessary.
- The Respondent's Argument on the Issue of Masturbation - I have expressed my opinion above, and I do not intend to repeat the words, that the respondent's claim that he was forced to masturbate in front of the interrogators is to be rejected on the factual level.
My colleague mentions the existence of discrepancies that arise from the respondent's versions on this point, who sometimes claimed that due to the interrogators' demand he was forced to masturbate in front of their eyes, and at other times claimed that he refused to comply with their demand (my colleague refers in this context to the statement of claim, the summaries of the claim and the affidavit of the respondent's main witness – paragraph 14 of his opinion). Against this background, my colleague searched for the equivalent between the versions, and he is correct to determine that at the very least the police officers demanded that the respondent masturbate – but he refused and did not comply with their demand.
As for myself, the discrepancies between the respondent's versions actually strengthen the conclusion that the respondent's claim regarding masturbation should not be accepted. In my opinion, precisely in view of the seriousness of the matter, and in the absence of a claim on the part of the respondent in this context for years and the length of all the many proceedings that took place in his case, it is difficult to shock that his memory betrayed him on the question of whether the interrogators actually forced him to masturbate, or whether the abuse was limited to the interrogators' demand that he masturbate, a demand that was not fulfilled due to the respondent's refusal. In short, unlike my colleague, I do not believe that after comparing the respondent's versions, the lowest common denominator should be "extracted" from them, and then adopted as the correct factual version. On the contrary. My opinion is that the discrepancies in the versions raise question marks, which only strengthen the conclusion that the respondent's argument on this point should be rejected.
- The "Detention Experience" as a Separate Head of Damage - My colleague sees the respondent's "experience of detention" as a head of damage in itself, which he described as the respondent's subjective feeling that he had been "marked" as a rapist, and his feeling that his allegations fell on deaf ears (all as detailed in paragraph 15 of my colleague's opinion).
This distinction is correct in itself, but in my opinion it should not be seen as a head of damage that stands on its own, but rather as part of the non-pecuniary damage, which naturally includes a whole range of emotions such as Shock, anger, irritation, disgust, worry, shock, "mental suffering, humiliation, shame, sorrow, insult, frustration, undermining faith in others, undermining self-perception and damage to self-esteem" (Compare with my position on the issue of the infringement of autonomy, according to which it should be seen as part of the non-pecuniary damage.) Other Municipality Requests 4576/08 Ben Zvi v. Hiss Paragraph 26 of my judgment (unpublished, July 7, 2011); Civil Appeal 1303/09 Kadosh v. Bikur Cholim Hospital in paragraph 74 (unpublished, March 5, 2012)).