At the end of the hearing on November 29, 2018, and after the accusing ISA accepted my recommendation to stick to the facts of the fourteenth indictment as they are in the indictment, and not to request that Fischer be convicted of this charge because of the additional facts that Malka first raised in the prosecution's witness interview, Fischer's counsel announced their agreement to continue and suspend the decision on the defense of justice claim until further notice is given by Fischer (pp. 6777-6778).
- The next round of hearings on Fischer's request to dismiss the fourteenth indictment due to selective enforcement took place at the end of 2024. On October 9, 2024, near the beginning of the defense case, Fischer filed a motion to set a date for a hearing on the preliminary arguments, including the claim that the indictment should not be answered in the said charge. After the defense's case began on October 28, 2024, an agreement was reached whereby Fisher and the accuser would submit orally regarding the preliminary arguments relating to this indictment (see transcript and decision of December 2, 2024). Accordingly, on December 8, 2024, Adv. Peri presented supplementary arguments in the motion for protection from justice due to selective enforcement (alongside the arguments in the motion to acquit the charge due to the lack of proof of alleged guilt at the conclusion of the prosecution's case). The accuser responded to Fischer's arguments on December 17, 2024, and Fischer responded to the accuser's response on December 24, 2024.
The supplements that Adv. Perry raised in the hearing on December 8, 2024, regarding the claim of selective enforcement, revolved, inter alia, on the failure to prosecute the fourteen indictments of other people (other than Malka) who participated in the nightly meeting, and according to the claim, the investigation material and the indictment attribute to them more significant actions during that meeting than Fisher.
Fischer raised this issue in 2016 as part of the summary of the preliminary arguments he filed on July 14, 2016, including the claim that the indictment in the night meeting affair does not reveal an offense against him and is tainted by selective enforcement in light of the fact that no indictments were filed against the other participants in the meeting (ibid., paragraph 26).