As to the second consideration, it appears that the method of interrogation, which was unfair, influenced the defendant's conduct in his interrogations, as detailed at length above.
With regard to the third consideration, which deals with considerations of harm and social benefit, I am of the opinion that the benefit of invalidating the statements in this case outweighs the damage involved. We have learned from the recent case law that today the severity of the offense attributed to the defendant in and of itself does not justify the acceptance of the evidence that was obtained unlawfully.
- In my opinion, The work of those informants, In the circumstances surrounding the defendant's interrogation/The minor, Against the background of the other flaws in the investigation process, exceeded the limits of what was permissible and reasonable and was likely to violate the defendant's right to a fair trial and/or to avoid self-incrimination or to harm the line of justice. The conduct of the informants and the measures taken during the second dubbing process (As can be learned from hearing the recording of the subject of/20 And as it appears from a review of the transcript of the recording/23a), As emerges from the body of evidence, Binding a conclusion according to which, In the circumstances of this case, The investigating authority trampled on the rights of the defendant/The minor, who was not given the free choice to deliver a stress-free version and/Or voluntarily. As I discussed above, Strong and harsh statements cannot be overlooked (Spoken by the voice actors during the act of dubbing) that they can project a degree of insult, Humiliation, Fear, Force and even the threat of violence against the defendant; and which were directed against the defendant/The minor while he was in the same cell with two adult informants (Again, In this context, See - A/20 , Min 41:40 "" ; Minutes 46 - 50 There you hear shouting and threats of physical violence on the part of the informants; Min 53:20 " Either you start talking or you don't know what" " Listen, I don't like sluts."; Min 53:55 "You'll talk like a man and you'll talk, brother, whatever he asks you, you'll answer"; And in a minute 54:05 " Talks like some maniac..." And more...). And Duke, In our democratic country, The use of such means of interrogation, which include, Applying Disproportionate Pressure on a Defendant (Especially a minor) At night (No visual documentation, After a busy day of interrogation) When he is slammed with shouting and in a strong tone of speech (As you can hear well during the dubbing) Vulgar words that contain a considerable amount of threat, Demanding that he give a version when it is clarified to the defendant, Time after time, Because he cannot continue to remain silent and that he must answer the questions of the informants.
- Conclusion, Where these interrogation methods were used, The defendant's confession as it was given to informants inside the detention cell should not be accepted.
Admittedly, The two informants played the character of criminals. Hall, This does not justify the use of investigative methods that contain the contents of the, Insults, Threat Degree, Use of explicit language that includes swearing and insulting, Violating the rights of a defendant/Minor. It should be emphasized, that the defendant's confession came after - 18 Minutes from the moment the defendant enters the informant's cell, At night. It is needless to repeat and mention again, Because the two informants had much more developed body dimensions than those of the defendant. Yes, The course of the dubbing was not recorded visually. To this you can add, Because even though it has been ruled, that placing a minor in the same cell with an adult, For the purpose of an investigative action, does not constitute a violation of the Youth Law, It cannot be ignored that the circumstances described above, are the same circumstances that the Youth Law sought to prevent, And they constitute an additional layer in the conclusion regarding the improper conduct of the investigating authorities in this case.
- In his testimony before us, The witness Vanunu did not know how to provide satisfactory explanations regarding his behavior in the detention cell, especially during the first part of the dubbing (This refers to - 18 The first minutes from the moment the defendant entered the cell). An examination of the course of dubbing teaches, Because the witness Vanunu approached the defendant several times and said to him:: "... Listen or you'll start talking or you don't know what.". The witness did not see this as a threat and did not even know how to explain his words, Noting:
"A:Call it a threat, I don't (It's not clear). Before that, I said , Again (It's not clear) False, You can call it whatever you want, But I don't see any threat in it again this time you can hear how he talks to me and how he answers as well. A person who is afraid and a person who behaves as you say,