The broad interpretation to be followed by the Supreme Court has also been reiterated in a criminal appeal 5822/08 Trittle v. State of Israel [Published in Nevo] (March 12, 2009) where it was noted (with reference to the Cobilio case mentioned above):
"The aforesaid element is laid out in the case law of this Court in a very broad manner, so that for the purpose of its existence 'It is sufficient that the act is done within the organizational framework in which the employee operates, or using the connections and ability to act that derive from the employee's work in a particular place or from his position'".
- The view of the affidavit signed by Ben-Eliezer and his testimony in court, as acts that fall under the definition of "an action related to his position," is learned from Ben-Eliezer's data, but mainly from the content of his words.
With regard to the data, and with all the understanding of the defense's argument, Ben-Eliezer's character cannot be regarded as a "private" figure, and it is clear that he brought with him to the witness stand the same "aura" that I have discussed, which is related to his public status and the variety of senior positions in which he served before testifying, and during that period.
Thus, for example, the affidavit opens with a description of Ben-Eliezer's tenure as a minister in the various Israeli governments, including as Minister of Infrastructures and Minister of Industry, Industry, and Industry.
The court hearing also began with a statement by attorney Solomonovich, which was intended to "remind" the witness who is expected to be heard.
It was noted as follows:
"... We agreed with my colleague that as soon as Mr. Fouad Ben-Eliezer arrives, since we have permission from the Speaker of the Knesset to testify here at exactly 11:00, that he has to return to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee by agreement, as soon as he arrives we will let him in and release him..." (P/119).
And if the aforementioned relates to the "envelope", then the content of Ben-Eliezer's testimony created a close connection between his public position, the circumstances of his acquaintance with the defendant, and his disclosure of the data related to the residency claim.