Hence, the timing prescribed by law for presenting the line of defense to the court, and the ability of the defendant to draw the court's attention in real time to the difficulties that exist in his opinion in the case that give rise to reasonable doubt about his guilt, constitute an integral part of the defendant's right to defend himself... Therefore, in some cases, the presentation of evidence retroactively and late may not be sufficient to heal the harm to the defendant's right to a fair trial as a result of the failure to provide the investigative material in a timely manner" (ibid., paragraphs 128-129; emphasis in the original).
As detailed above, the delay in transferring the investigation materials to the defense in the case before us is more comprehensive and severe than in the case Elmalah. Therefore, the conclusion that the infringement of the defendant's rights justifies a remedy in accordance with the doctrine of protection from justice is even more necessary in the present case. Not only that, but in Parashat Elmalah, the lack of evidence was completed by the end of the trial, albeit late and in a manner that did not cure the violation of the defendant's right to a fair trial. This is not the case before us, in which the failures and omissions of the Department for the Investigation of Police caused this that until this moment The court, and neither the prosecution nor the defense, is presented with a full picture: not of the events that took place during the investigation; not of the actions taken by the investigators and senior officials in the department in connection with the investigation and the recruitment of state witnesses; and not of the materials written and created by the investigative bodies. This conclusion is the result of the heavy mass of perplexities that arose from the first days of the proceeding; from the incessant dripping of new materials that were transferred to the defense throughout the years of conducting the proceeding – often as a result of 'offensive' initiatives and actions by the defense, which was forced to do the work of the investigative authority; from unsatisfactory and sometimes even contradictory answers given by the Department for the Investigation of Police regarding unexplained materials and events relating to the investigation; And from the fact that to this day, some of the events remain largely vague and difficult in a way that does not provide an adequate response to resolve the difficulties.