President Barak was also of the opinion that "the 'natural judge' of a defendant is the judge of the country in which he committed the offense" (Sheinbein [44], at p. 639). And in the Straw case [39], at p. 499, Justice Matza held:
"... The degree of justice requires that a person who has chosen to commit an offense in a country that is not his country of citizenship and whose permanent place of residence is not required to stand trial before the competent judicial court in the country in which he chose to commit his offense, which will clarify his law according to its laws and method."
Justice Adiel added:
"... The commission of the offense violates first and foremost the sovereignty and order of the state in whose territory the offense was committed. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the matter of a state would be a given
first and foremost to what happens within its territory, and only then to acts committed in other countries that have no direct impact on what is happening in its territory" (Maimon-Cohen [45], at p. 64).
- But what is the law when an offense has been committed in a number of places? The rule relating to the place of execution does not provide a solution to such a situation. Moreover, we have even been presented with a case in which the prevailing competition is between two countries, neither of which seeks to prosecute a person on the basis of connection TerritorialEven then, the "place of execution rule" was not relevant. Moreover, and this is important for our purposes, how will competition be decided where the offense in question is conspiracy in one country to commit an offense in another? After all, according to the view that I have expressed, both countries should be regarded as having territorial applicability, and in such a way the "rule of the place of execution" is found to be useless.
I am of the opinion that as far as criminal matters are concerned, a person's "natural" legal system is the same method to which the act attributed to him is most intensely connected. This approach, sometimes referred to as the "maximum affinity" approach or the "center of gravity" approach of the offense, is the one that best expresses the connection between the act and the legal system that should apply. It proposes an effective priority rule that can assist - along with the other considerations that the court is commanded to consider - in resolving most of the conceivable competition cases.