In view of the aforesaid, even if I assume, for the purpose of the discussion, that there was room to accept the interpretation embodied in section 4A(5) of the Procedure To the section 2 of the Identity Card Law, in contradiction between it and Sections 68-67 Law The Arrests The latter have the upper hand. This is because they were enacted later (in 1997, as opposed to 1982, when the Identity Card Law was enacted); This is because these provisions in the law The Arrests specifically and explicitly establishes the balancing formula of "reasonable basis for suspicion", while Section 2 The Identity Card Law has general and silent language regarding the circumstances in which the authority granted therein will be established, and in any event, the balancing formula attributed to it in section 4A(5) of the procedure is not reflected in its language.
However, it should be emphasized that this is said only more than necessary, in light of the precedent according to which these rules for deciding between conflicting legislative provisions will be applied only in the absence of the possibility of preventing the contradiction le-khatḥila by interpretive means (see, among many: 77"m 1207/15 Ruhamkin v. Bnei Brak City Council, verse 5 [Nevo] (August 18, 2016); High Court of Justice 6299/21, ibid.; Interest The Nation-State Law, ibid.; Lightning - General Interpretation Theory, ibid.). In our case, as explained above, the rules of interpretation themselves lead to the conclusion that one should not attribute To the section 2 The Identity Card Law has the interpretation attributed to it in section 4a(5) of the procedure, lest the balancing formula that was determined be emptied of its content In Sections 68-67 Law The Arrests.
- This conclusion is even more valid, given that it is worn out The Arrests It is intended to regulate the laws of arrest and detention in Israel, while establishing a balance between the need to give the police tools to carry out its duties and the need to protect human rights (see, for example: explanatory notes to the Arrests Bill, pp. 306, 328; Tabqa, verse 36) - Purposes that, as stated, are also at the foundation of the Section 2 to the Identity Card Law. The Fundamental Importance of This System of Balances in the Law The Arrests expressly expressed In the section 1(II) of this law, according to which "The arrest and detention of a person shall be in a manner that will ensure maximum protection of human dignity and rights". Further to this principle established by the legislature, the specific provisions of the The Arrests Law are intended to determine the individual balancing points in the issues regulated within them, in order to prevent disproportionate infringement of rights (see, for example: Miscellaneous Criminal Applications 1000/05 Hassid v. State of Israel, verse 8(2) [Nevo] (1.3.2005); Chaya Zandberg Interpretation of the Detentions Law 34 (2001) (hereinafter: Zandberg)). Also, through the established principle In the section 1(III) Law The Arrests, according to which "the provisions of the [Arrests] Law - 16] shall apply to arrest and detention under any law, unless otherwise provided by law.", the legislature expressed its position that the balances set out in the arrangements of the Detention Law are consistent with Law-Foundation: Human Dignity and Liberty (Hereinafter: The Basic Law), and therefore it is appropriate that they also apply to the powers of arrest and detention established in other laws (see: Zandberg, ibid.).
- As for our matter, In Sections 68-67 Law The Arrests It was expressly determined that in order to ascertain the identity of a suspect in the commission of an offense or of a witness to the commission of an offense, it is necessary to meet the threshold of "reasonable basis for suspicion". In this determination, the legislature therefore expressed its clear position that this standard strikes a correct balance between the need to give the police tools to carry out their duties, and the importance of protecting individual rights, and fulfills the principle of proportional harm set forth in the Basic Law; and that this is the threshold that must apply to the exercise of the authority to demand identification in the set of circumstances in question. As mentioned, there is no room to circumvent this balancing formula by means of an overly expansive interpretation of Section 2 to the Identity Card Law.
- This is even more acute, in light of the fact that the issue of the threshold required for exercising powers to detain a suspect or witness is fixed In Sections 68-67 Law The Arrests, discussed in depth as part of the legislative process.
Thus, as part of the proposal The Arrests Law A different threshold was originally proposed in the aforementioned issue, when this is the wording that was proposed To the section 67 to the Arrests Law (ibid., at p. 327):