The facts that attest to the authenticity of the content of the record – in other words, the institution's practice of making a record of the event that is the subject of the list, the fact that this practice takes place during the normal management of the institution and that the registration of the event took place close to its occurrence – must usually be proven by the testimony of someone who can testify to the veracity of these facts and be questioned about his statements in court. The testimony must also relate to the following facts, which show that the manner in which the data is collected and the manner in which the record itself was edited - indicate the truthfulness of its content. [....]
The Ordinance does not offer a special way of proving the existence of the conditions required for admissibility recorded as evidence; the proof of the conditions will, therefore, be done by the usual means of proof. As a rule, it is appropriate, and it is beneficial, that the proof be done by way of submitting an affidavit that comes to verify the facts that need to be proven or also by way of presenting an expert opinion – where the facts that need to be proven are facts of expertise. In those cases where the opposing party requests it, the declarant or the expert must appear for cross-examination. Failure to do so may drop the ground under the feet of the litigant who wishes to rely on the institutional record (ibid., paragraphs 8-10).
- In the application for approval, to which the two aforementioned appendices were attached, nothing was argued regarding the admissibility of the documents and their 'legal' nature. Thus, for example, in the application for approval, it was not claimed that the documents in question are a 'public certificate' or an 'institutional record' for which all the necessary conditions are met, in order for them to be accepted as evidence of the veracity of the software. Even Prof. Grotto was not asked in his interrogation and did not refer to the above conditions.
- Regarding Appendix 4, this is a response to a request to present cancer morbidity data to the Appeals Subcommittee of the National Planning and Building Council. I am of the opinion that the document cannot be considered an "institutional record". This is a response written by Prof. Grotto to the National Appeals Commissioner, in which cancer morbidity data were presented and interpreted, based on various studies by the National Cancer Registrar ( Reference 1), Yakir Rotenberg from 2013 ( Reference No. 2) and Ron Rabinovich ( Reference No. 3). It is an act of interpreting data, a professional analysis of data brought from the sources mentioned in the document.
- As Prof. Grotto testified regarding what is stated in Appendix 4, and I am of the opinion that this is also relevant to Appendix 4.1..It's a matter of interpretation. And in this case, what I am... In fact, the interpretation I have given is one that is certainly reasonable" (page 963, line 33 and page 964, lines 1-2).
- Grotto was asked about the manner in which the position paper was drafted (Appendix 4.1) and he replied as follows:
The Honorable Judge D. Chasdai: ... How your work was done to create the position paper, that's fine.