Moreover, the appellant cannot be found holding the rope at both ends. His argument, on the one hand, that the extradition of the Dadosh brothers to the United States establishes a defense from justice because it harms his defense if he is tried in Israel, cannot be heard in conjunction with the argument that on the other hand, the fact that the two undertook to return to Israel, to the extent that their testimony here is required, strengthens the conclusion that the evidentiary center of gravity is in Israel and therefore should not be extradited. The claim of protection from justice should therefore be rejected by all its leaders.
The procedural arrangements proposed by the appellant
- The appellant's proposal to "reduce the arena of dispute" by undertaking to waive the testimony of witnesses cannot be accepted. Even given the adversarial nature of our legal system, such a proposal harms, to the extent that it cannot be tolerated, the procedural process, and even more serious - I am able to clarify the matter as I am aware. The respondent rightly noted that this arrangement does not take into account the discretion given to the court to summon witnesses before it. But not long ago, when dealing with a similar issue, this court ruled as follows:
"...Experience teaches... Because prosecuting in Israel for offenses committed in foreign countries involves so many difficulties - inter alia: difficulties in locating witnesses and compelling them to testify - that they can only be overcome with great difficulty. The appellant's proposals to overcome these difficulties - such as by way of a change in the rules of procedure and the ordinary rules of evidence - are so difficult to carry out and distort the proceeding to such an extent that they are inadmissible in practice" (The Feinberg case [8], at p. 62).
The logic of this reasoning applies equally in our case, and it requires that the appellant's proposal in question be rejected as well. Now that we have removed this matter from the path, we can turn to the examination of the issues at the heart of the appeal.