It was argued that a deterrent conditional imprisonment and a significant fine would balance a punishment that would not include imprisonment behind bars.
Counsel for the defendants referred to paragraph 6 of the amended indictment, which shows that the defendants acted together with other conspirators.In varying compositions, sometimes only the defendants acted, sometimes only the other conspirators, and sometimes which of the defendants together and which of the conspirators.". The defendants were indeed the main perpetrators of the offenses, but not the sole perpetrators. It was argued that the appropriate range of punishment to which the accuser claimed was severe and did not improve the fact that the defendants did not act alone.
Counsel for the defendants further argued that in determining the sentence of the defendants, the court must take into account the argument of selective enforcement and discrimination that characterized the accuser's conduct, since no indictments were filed against any of the other conspirators, the straw women and the students. The accuser's arbitrary choice not to exhaust the investigation and not to file additional indictments as aforesaid, discriminated against the defendants.
As to the extent of the violation of protected values, it was argued that there was no indication in the file of the number of students who passed the exams as a result of the defendants' actions.
The defense attorney sought to give great weight to the defendants' confession, the assumption of responsibility, their clean criminal record, and the significant savings in the court's time in light of the large number of witnesses. He also asked to take into account the fact that the defendants were detained behind bars.
In relation to Defendant 1, it was claimed that she was an educated woman who, despite the legal process, continued her higher studies (bachelor's, master's degree and the beginning of her doctoral studies) and broke boundaries despite her belonging to traditional Bedouin society. The defense attorney added that as a result of the criminal proceeding, defendant 1 has divorced and is paying a heavy social price for her actions in the company to which she belongs. In refining the defendant's personal circumstances, the defense attorney was of the opinion that the recommendation of the Probation Service should be adopted, that rehabilitation punishment should be chosen and that community service should be sufficed.