"...In continuation of these remarks, It should be noted that in 2010 2002 Accepted The Criminal Procedure Law (Interrogation of suspects), 2000"II-2002 which states that, as a rule,, Interrogation of a suspect at the police station for serious offenses, will be documented visually, subject to the restrictions listed in the law. This arrangement is supposed to be implemented gradually by means of orders issued by the Minister of Public Security as aforesaid In the section 16(II) Law. The statutory obligation to document the interrogations of suspects in a visual or audio way is intended to allow the home to-The sentence to be impressed in the closest way to an unmediated impression, The manner in which the interrogation was conducted and the circumstances in which the confession was delivered during it. This, About-In order to assist him in determining the admissibility and weight of confessions made during the interrogation, and to enable better protection of the rights of interrogees..."
In our case, no satisfactory explanation was given as to the reason for the absence of visual documentation. In this context, see the testimony of Moshe Shabu. As stated above, this witness noted that the decision whether to carry out visual or audio documentation is not in his own hands, but is left to the discretion of the investigation team, with the witness Abu acting according to the instructions given to him (p. 199 of the transcript, lines 28-31).
Much ink has been spilled about the importance of visual documentation. The absence of such documentation in the circumstances surrounding the course of the investigation here, without any satisfactory explanation, has a profound impact on the ability of the panel sitting on Midian to get a direct and comprehensive impression of the conduct of the parties during the dubbing, of body movements, signs, signals, body type, the personal space that exists, and more. These words are all the more valid when the defendant is a minor, when the dubbing is partly done at night, inside the police station, in a cell in which both the minor defendant and two adult informants are present. Moreover, when there is a dispute between the parties regarding the conduct of the informants inside the cell, their body movements, and when claims are raised regarding body dimensions, clothing details, tattoos on the body, physical proximity between the informants and the defendant, and markings that the parties have exchanged between them, there is tremendous importance to the visual documentation that can shed light on the balance of power and the conduct inside the cell. The absence of such documentation sometimes causes the court to grope in the dark. In this context, it seems that there is no need to elaborate on the importance of body movements and signs that the parties to the conversation exchange while they are inside the cell. After all, sometimes, one body movement is worth a thousand words. Sometimes, quiet conduct that indicates a certain dynamic can decide the fate of a particular claim. Go out and learn, a person can teach us about the secrets of his heart, his intentions and/or his desires, not only from his words and/or words that are spoken by him. Rather, from his movements and his body language. Sometimes a single body movement speaks more than a thousand words to us. It is well known that interrogees and/or suspects and/or witnesses sometimes prefer to express what is in their hearts in the form of movement, sign and/or signal. Therefore, the investigative authority must not block the eyes of the judiciary by placing an intelligence barrier between the latter and the events in the dubbing chamber. On the contrary, transparency, exposure to the array of forces and the dynamics within the dubbing chamber will greatly assist in the search for the truth and the correct and just outcome, in the circumstances of the case.
- Investigator G's statement'Steaming to the defendant upon entering the cell with the informants - "Think well, this is a murder case" And which reached the ears of the informants and its consequences:
When the defendant entered the detention cell in Hadera, While releasing the handcuffs that were on his hands, The defendant heard the statement - "Think well, this is a murder case". It is clear that this statement reached the ears of the two informants who were in the cell, At the same time. I will not yet comment on the content of the dubbing and the manner in which the informants behave., I will first examine the statement that was made indirectly during a conversation "Innocent" Supposedly, and which contained details indicating the reason for the defendant's arrest. This question came up to us during the hearing, and the witnesses were even questioned in connection with it. Investigator C'Hud, As can be seen from the transcript of the conversation (Ibid.' 6, Row 3) He said to the defendant: "Meet tomorrow probably ok? Think well, this is a murder case, Not a game". The interrogator was asked about the reason behind this statement, And this is how he replied: