The reasons raised by the State in its reply to the question of why the discretion was exercised in the appellant's case as it was exercised are correct, and I did not see fit to doubt them. They take into account the central part attributed to the appellant in the top echelons of the conspirators, the fact that the consequences of the offense arose overseas, the central purpose of the Extradition Law, which requires international cooperation in the fight against organized crime and drug trafficking in particular, and the amendment of the Extradition Law in 1999 (the Extradition Law (Amendment No. 6), 5759-1999, which is still required), which expands the range of cases in which a person can be extradited. More importantly, indictments filed in Israel against
Others who were suspected of smuggling drugs to countries abroad show differences between them and the appellant, and they are sufficient to justify the adoption of a different policy towards him.
- The argument regarding the appellant's discrimination in relation to other defendants in the case before us must also be rejected. There is no dispute that selective enforcement, which is based on irrelevant considerations, is prohibited:
"...Selective enforcement is enforcement that violates equality in the sense that it differentiates for the purpose of enforcement between similar people or between similar situations in order to achieve an improper goal, either on the basis of extraneous consideration or out of sheer arbitrariness... Such enforcement is in sharp contradiction to the principle of equality before the law in the basic Mob.. It is destructive to the rule of law; It is outrageous in terms of justice; It endangers the judicial system. The power to file a criminal indictment is an important and difficult power. It can decide the fate of a person. The same is true of the power to enforce a law in another way, such as the power to arrest a person or the power to confiscate property. It must be exercised in a matter-of-fact, egalitarian and reasonable manner" (High Court of Justice 6396/96 Zakin v. Mayor of Be'er Sheva [11], at p. 305).