(3) Interrogation of a suspect in an offense not listed in the addendum, and that the provisions of sections 8(2) or (3) or 11(A)(2) They do not apply to it, Recorded in Visual Documentation, In audio or written documentation".
In the framework of Criminal Appeals Authority 4142/04 Milstein v. Chief Military Prosecutor [published in Nevo] (December 14, 2006) (paragraph 25 of the opinion of Justice E. Levy), the Supreme Court noted the importance of visual documentation of persons interrogated on suspicion of committing serious offenses, as stipulated in the amendment to the Interrogation of Suspects Law, and stated:
"No need to clarify, Because the fear of miscarriage of justice caused by a conviction based on a false confession is smaller when it comes to an interrogation that was visually documented, and that this documentation is placed before the trial court, who can be impressed - Almost unmediated - The manner in which the investigation was conducted, The Defendant's Conduct and the Conduct of His Interrogators."
Similarly, Dr. Hagit Larnau wrote:
"Visual documentation can help prevent false confessions on two different levels: Both in the fact that the knowledge that the filmed interrogation moderates the interrogators' behavior during the interrogation, and in the fact that the documentation allows for an unmediated examination of the dynamics that led to the suspect's confession. The visual footage opens a window for the defense and the court to follow the dynamics of the interrogation; Examine the fabric of the relationship created between the interrogee and the interrogee; The site uses suggestive means about the suspect or parts of the investigation in which the investigator reveals prepared details even when the investigator himself was not aware of it in real time".
(See Hagit Larnau, False Confessions, False Convictions, Alei Mishpat, vol. 11 ( 2014), section 318, at pp. 356-357).
In the same context, see what was determined in the Issacharov case, paragraph 23 of the judgment, where it was held: