Third, the state found an additional reason for its retraction of the appellant's charge, but this reason was not revealed to us and it was and remains unknown. This reason was discussed by counsel for the State at the time of the hearing before the District Court in her discussion of "feelings received as a result of events that occurred, which are inadmissible in court and about which the court would not have known at all..." See the quote in paragraph 71 above. This obscure reason was also expressed in the notice submitted by the state to the court, in which it sought to acquit the appellant. We have quoted this statement in paragraph 3 of our opinion and will now turn our attention to the statement that the state's request to withdraw its indictment was made, inter alia, "following further inquiries and examinations [sic] conducted by the accuser to date..."
- Thus we can summarize – roughly and roughly – the reasons for its return-In the state's accusation of the appellant: If the state had known in the beginning what it knew in the end, no writ would not have been submitted-An indictment against the appellant.
- As to the appellant's personal matter, it goes without saying what he suffered both in body, soul and in the name of goodness, and the greater will be less.
- The considerations of right stand at the head of Gerizim, and on the other hand, on the head of Eival, there are considerations of obligation. The latter are heard, mainly, from the mouth of a house-The District Court for the time it rejects the appellant's request for indemnification and compensation. We have quoted these words in full in paragraph 72 above, and if we add – we will be deducted. Indeed, a house-The District Court makes harsh words against the appellant, and even though it does not convict him in the law – since at the request of the prosecution he acquits him – it says things about him that are very close to a conviction.
- These considerations hence here; These considerations are here, and we must decide between them. As we have already said, as opposed to a decision-The law on its merits, that a binary decision is – for the tribe or for the right – a decision on the issue of compensation and indemnity is a subsidiary decision-It has different shades and there are no-A bit of institutionalization of the compromise. On the evening of the day, we will remember that the appellant's acquittal came to him because the prosecution retracted his accusation, and it seems to me that after we read the reasons for the prosecution's decision – and while examining the decision of the-The District Court rejecting the appellant's request for indemnification and compensation – it is appropriate that we recognize, if only slightly, the appellant's right to indemnification and compensation. I will therefore suggest to my colleagues that we accept the appeal, and that we further obligate the State to pay the appellant twenty-five percent of the maximum compensation and defense expenses to which he is entitled, all as aforesaid, in addition to the Compensation Regulations. Since we do not have exact details on the relevant data, the file will be transferred to the Registrar, who will decide the question after hearing arguments and receiving evidence as required.
President A. Barak