Witness, Mr. Ben Lulu: Okay.
Adv. Arbel: I don't have the strength to stand anymore.
Witness, Mr. Ben Lulu: Yes.
Adv. Arbel: Did you interest him?
Witness, Mr. Ben Lulu: Of course it interested me,
Adv. Arbel: So what did you do with it?
Witness, Mr. Ben Lulu: Later on, he also continues with the cigarettes and this one and nothing happened.
Adv. Arbel: Okay.
Witness, Mr. Ben Lulu: No damage was done to him.
Adv. Arbel: He didn't collapse.
Witness, Mr. Ben Lulu: He was not harmed.
Adv. Arbel: That's the indication.
Witness, Mr. Ben Lulu: Yes."
(Name, Lines, 17 -30).
- Here it is., Taking into account the course of that investigation and even from the content of this investigation, And against the background of the testimony of the investigator Ben Lulu himself, You can get an impression, Because the interrogator carried "Monologue" during which he tried to speak to the defendant's heart and conscience and to persuade him to give a version. Kerry, We are interested in a monologue whose purpose was to bring about a psychological effect on the subject/The minor (A monologue made outside the interrogation rooms, In outer space, No visual documentation, When there is no satisfactory explanation for the absence of such documentation) In order to give a version and/or plead guilty. Indeed, the role of a researcher, is to investigate. Hall, More than once it has been ruled, that the use of psychological means of persuasion to persuade the interrogee to confess, While making statements that imply that the defendant "Will need" Finally speak, As opposed to trying to persuade an interrogee to give a version, No, a substantive and legitimate investigation is. On the contrary, This is an intervention by virtue of silence, When, Again, In the event that we are at our doorstep, This intervention did not achieve its goal as, The monologue did not break the silence of the defendant.
- As emerges from the totality of the evidence, During the defendant's interrogations before his interrogators, His spirit was not broken, nor was his insistence on the autonomy of his will broken.. He remained calm and maintained his right to remain silent. Hence, It can be said, Because there was no real violation of the autonomy of the will of the interrogee. Hall, In the context of the above necessity, I will note, that an investigative authority should act in a manner that does not infringe on the rights of a minor defendant, While upholding the provisions of the law and the fairness of the criminal proceeding and while seeking to discover the truth (And don't do "All, All, All I can do, Do everything to make him speak, Just let him talk " According to the researcher) . This is the place to emphasize, Again and again, that the basis of an investigative proceeding is not the purpose and/or the purpose of seeking to obtain a confession that is "The Queen of Evidence" According to the approach of the investigating authority here. Investigative Procedure, Intended to bring about the discovery of the truth and the disclosure of the details and processes of the alleged factual occurrence, The Subject of the Indictment. He should not investigate, Being a prisoner of the concept according to which - The interrogee is the object of the interrogation. Never, An investigation should be matter-of-fact, Balanced and influenced, To the right extent, From the Evidential Wind Gusts, As they are exposed to the eyes of the researchers, who overlook all the planes and all the points of control, No exception. Yes, Never, Be careful to interrogate a suspect/A minor by a specially trained youth investigator who is skilled and proficient in the provisions of the law and youth laws. Yes, The interrogation of a minor should be done with extreme caution, No insults and/or threats and insults, While preserving his rights, His Soft Soul, The Dignity and Uniqueness of the Minor.
- In his interrogation before us, the defendant referred to this chapter of the interrogation by stating that, that the interrogator pressured him to confess and he in turn explained to him, Repeat, Because he has nothing to admit (pp' 486 For the record, Lines 22 -29). According to the defendant, He felt frightened when he found himself in the same situation, and his only thought was focused on his parents and family (pp' 487 For the record, Lines 1 -2).
As for the researcher Ben Lulu and his attitude towards him, The defendant testified as follows:: "I didn't feel like a friend or a father to him., I felt that he was the interrogator and I was the interrogee and I had one right that I kept the right to remain silent and when it didn't suit him that I was maintaining the right to remain silent so he started cursing and insulting me and I felt humiliated by him for doing these things to me. Like because I don't cooperate with him so I'm shit". (pp' 495 For the record, Lines 18 -22).
- Up Next, In his cross-examination, The defendant claimed in the context of his interrogation by Ben Lulu, Because the latter put pressure on him, Throughout the interrogation, Let him confess while telling him stories about Cain and Abel, and "Admitting and leaving Yeruham" And words from the Bible"K (See his testimony - pp' 508 For the record, Lines 29 -31).
- Again, It is evident from the defendant's testimony in this context, Because the pressures of the researcher Ben Lulu, As it emerges from that monologue, They didn't really get what they wanted, and that they did not break the silence of the defendant.
- Here it is., The interrogation of investigator Ben Lulu was carried out without taking any action "Security Mechanism" through which it is possible to verify, Because we are interested in the products of a fair investigation . I will not sin against the goal, If I clarify, come back and clarify, Because a distinction must be made between a proper interrogation whose sole purpose is to collect a statement and reflect a voluntary version of the interrogee, and an interrogation whose roots strike and draw their vitality from the will and increased potential that is nested in the consciousness of any interrogator to achieve "Confession" At any price.
In the context of interrogation methods and norms of proper conduct, see the matter of Abu Issa The court addressed this issue, stating as follows: