"Yes, the first interrogation of the defendant began at the Afula station right after his arrest, an initial interrogation where he already maintained his right to remain silent, in all the interrogations of course before the interrogation he was given the right to consult with a lawyer, he insisted on all his rights, it was explained to him exactly what he was suspected of, after all this process of course since he is a minor we made sure that in all the interrogations there would be a youth interrogator who took care of all the documents and everything that is required in youth interrogations. As I said, the defendant in all his interrogations started the interrogation with one trial, I don't remember the trial exactly, that the police or the CID interrogated him once and took him out to a lawsuit against his friends or something like that, and that's why he doesn't trust the police, and from there, on the advice of his lawyer, he maintained his right to remain silent in all the interrogations almost to the end."
(p. 54 of the transcript, lines 11-22).
- At some point during this investigation, At 1 o' 17:47, Investigator Ben Lulu entered and took the defendant out of the investigation office. At 1 o' 19:40 The defendant returned to the interrogation room with interrogator Ben Lulu for further interrogation (See - A/77 Lines 18 -21).
- As can be seen from the above collection, For nearly two hours, Eli Ben Lulu interrogated the defendant outside. This investigation was documented and marked 99 234/16 (A/107); The interrogation disc and transcript were submitted to the court file (Exhibits T/108 and- A/110). Also, A document was submitted regarding a summary of an interrogation exercise, Edited by researcher David Huli (A/109).
- About this investigation, which you will read below: "The second interrogation by interrogator Ben Lulu", Discussion of this chapter. Hall, Before entering the examination of the investigation on its merits, I will make two comments; Upon the defendant's arrest, a search was conducted at his parents' home in accordance with a search warrant; It's on the day 28.2.16. Scientific tests carried out regarding the seized objects yielded nothing. Among other objects, knives were seized and after examining blood remains, No findings were found on them (See - A/32 The same value Noam said, Mobile Laboratory Officer).
Presence of a parent in the interrogation
- Another note; related to the right of the minor being interrogated to the presence of a parent during the interrogation. The rule adopted is, that in accordance with the provisions of the Youth Law, The right of a minor who is a parent on his behalf or a relative to be present during his interrogation, and his right to consult him before the interrogation. Moreover, There is an obligation to inform the interrogee of this right. Admittedly, There are limitations to this right, Such as - When the authorized officer comes to a reasoned conclusion that the (The presence of a parent in the interrogation and consultation with him) Could lead to the disruption of the investigation. (In this context, see the instructions Section 9H of the Youth Law).
In relation to the relevant investigation that is the subject of this proceeding, A document was submitted on behalf of Hodaya Amsalem (A/35). According to the learned defense attorney's approach, This document did not detail the reasons that were the basis for preventing the defendant from meeting with the parents, and it appears that, The rights granted by the legislature to minors were blatantly and illegally violated. He further argued in"The Defendant, Because the investigators' only desire was to isolate the minor when the presence of his parents was sufficient to set stumbling blocks in the way of the investigating authority's desire to reach what they wanted and extract a confession from the defendant, And this is without any justification in the law.