(Emphasis in original, S.D.)
For the sake of clarity and relevance to our case, in the same matter it was further ruled that;
"24. As for the subsequent confessions that were given from the first documented interrogation...... until before the second interrogation, these were given of the free will of Defendant 1. The visual documentation during these interrogations, as well as the lead and voting, provided a very important tool for an unmediated impression of the atmosphere in the interrogations and the defendant's conduct.....
25 Watching the first documented interrogation, looking at the defendant's body language, listening to his words, and the tone of his and Interrogator Miguel's speech – show that the confession was given of the defendant's free will." (ibid., paragraphs 24 and 25 of the judgment).
In the Duma case, it was a dubbing exercise that was spread over a period of seven days, during which a coaching relationship was formed between the parties to the dubbing conversation. The court there ruled, after being exposed to the body of evidence surrounding the confession, that it was not a case of the use of improper means that could lead to the invalidity of that confession.
On the other hand, in the case before us, we are dealing with a loaded, loaded dubbing of trees, during which insults, harsh and insulting language are used, and even shouting and threats of violence. Yes, it is impossible to ignore the fact that the act of dubbing that preceded the stage in which the defendant confessed lasted only about 18 minutes, without the interrogation exercise receiving visual documentation; It should be emphasized that we are concerned with the confession, and that substantial parts of it contradict the events as they actually occurred; All as detailed in the previous chapters. Moreover, it is evident that the atmosphere that prevailed inside the cell (at the stage prior to the defendant's confession) was so threatening and stressful that it is highly doubtful whether it left the defendant/minor with a choice of which way to choose. Yes, the lack of visual documentation blocked us from getting a closer look at the moves, happenings, dynamics and physical proximity between the defendant and the informants, body movements and signs that included a description of the place of the stabbing.
- I will mention further, the matter of Mirez (Criminal Appeal 4109/15 the above); At the heart of that appeal was the question of whether the complex "interrogation exercise" that was used against the appellant with the participation of a number of parties, including prison guards and a number of police officers who were brought into the appellant's cell and a nearby cell under the guise of detainees for the purpose of informing him, constitutes a legitimate interrogation exercise, so that the confession made by the appellant in the framework of it is admissible; The court there answered in the affirmative with a majority opinion. The court ruled that this was an admissible confession, despite the fact that it was given during a complex informant exercise, during which improper measures were taken; And when one of the informants accused the defendant that he (i.e., the defendant) was an undercover policeman, and also threatened him (implicitly) with violent bodily injury. Despite all of this, the court (in a majority opinion) ruled that the confession was admissible. In contrast, the minority opinion of the Honorable Justice Hendel, who held that the admissibility of the appellant's confession in this case should be denied by virtue of Section 12(a) to the Evidence Ordinance due to the threat of violence by the undercover policemen, when undercover policemen created a representation in the appellant that if he continued to deny his actions, he might be harmed. Although the threats were not explicit, in the sense of "confess or you will be harmed", the informants created a representation towards the appellant that harming him was a real possibility.
In contrast to the case of "Mirez", in our case, we are dealing with a minor defendant who was also accused of being a cooperating with the enforcement authorities. Yes, the investigative exercise in his case was carried out at night (a fact alone is not sufficient to invalidate the confession) without visual documentation. Yes, statements were directed at the defendant here that went beyond an implicit threat of violence, insults and statements that included shouting. Again, the defendant's confession did not correspond, with regard to the material parts included in it, with the facts as they actually occurred.