In the context of identification in the circumstances at hand, it was ruled in criminal appeal 4263/14 Na'aim v. State of Israel (June 2, 2015):
"Much has already been written about the problems involved in a conviction based on the visual identification of a defendant by a single witness. Such identification relies on data processing, which is usually done in times of tension, very quickly, and under conditions that may lead to confusion and misidentification, even though many times, the identifier is genuinely sure that the person he identifies as the perpetrator of the offense is indeed the person who committed the crime (see: Criminal Appeal 648/77 Kariv v. State of Israel, IsrSC 32(2) 729, 758 (1978)). However, studies show that these identifications, even when done with absolute certainty and with a high level of certainty, can be erroneous as a result of the illusions of memory and the limitations of the human ability to perceive the offender's face at the time of the offense, to reliably retain it in his memory, and to reconstruct it at a later stage."
The defense argued that "this case is not a circumstantial case, we have direct evidence" and is the only eyewitness in the Ruthie Arnon case, who is also a reliable witness to the accuser's position. Indeed, this is a reliable testimony, but as has already been determined, more than once, in the matter of eyewitnesses, a distinction must be made between reliability and credibility. Ruling, for example, in Criminal Appeal 1324/23 Abu Abed v. State of Israel (July 15, 2024):
"As for myself, it seems to me that the terminology that is more appropriate to describe the said distinction is between 'reliability' and 'truthfulness,' that is, between the reliability of the witness and the truthfulness of his testimony. Indeed, when a witness testifies about a certain occurrence and is found to be reliable by the court, the assumption is that there is no longer any reason to doubt the veracity of his statements. However, when doubt arises as to the compatibility between the witness's perception and the objective reality, the court will not be able to suffice with the fact that the witness is reliable (subjectively), per se, in order to establish factual findings on the basis of his testimony."