Nevertheless, and in order not to leave this issue without the necessary legal attention, I will briefly explain why there is room to view the observation report as admissible and of real weight, even though it is secondary evidence, when the original evidence was lost and was not submitted for our review. With regard to the issue of admissibility, it will suffice to mention the process that has taken place over the years with respect to the rule of "best evidence", which was originally absorbed in Israeli law as a rule of admissibility, but with time and the development of the law, it has long since become an issue that affects the weight of evidence and not on its admissibility itself. See a description of this process in the book of the scholar Yaniv Vaki in the Law of Evidence, pp. 347-357, and see, more recently, the words of the Supreme Court in criminal appeal 901/23 Binyamin v. M.I. (July 6, 2025), according to which:
"The ruling of this court has eroded the power of the best evidence rule, when there is a tendency to recognize a copy of evidence insofar as there is no concern about its credibility" (High Court of Justice 1433/18 Anonymous v. Beer Sheva District Court, para. 13 (April 12, 2018)). In fact, the rule has taken root in case law, according to which "in the absence of concern about the reliability of the 'copy', the failure to produce the original document will not in itself erode the evidentiary basis of the party making use of it" (Civil Appeal 9622/07 Holin v. Clalit Health Fund of the General Histadrut of Workers in the Land of Israel, para. 25 (May 30, 2010); See also: Civil Appeal 2449/08 Toashi v. Mercantile Discount Bank in Tax Appeal (November 16, 2010); Criminal Appeal 3974/92 Azoulay v. State of Israel, IsrSC 47(2) 565 (1993); and in detail about the foundations of this rule, and the changes that have taken place therein in Israel and around the world: Criminal Appeal 4481/14 Anonymous v. State of Israel, paragraphs 21-27 (November 16, 2016) (hereinafter: Anonymous case))."