In a Criminal Appeal 803/80 Abutbul v. State of Israel, IsrSC 36(2) 523, 528-529 states:
"I accept the approach of the trial court, which distinguished between the admissibility of a statement and the question of weight, which can be attributed to the things stated therein. The admissibility itself is an automatic derivative result of the fulfillment of the three conditions in section 10a(a), the first of which we referred to above. These conditions do not require the presentation of testimony as to the circumstances of the collection of the statement, but only its identification as the witness's statement, and if the witness himself confirms its identity as explained, there is no need to bring any additional witness."
The Second Condition It is that "The person who gave the statement is a witness in the trial and the parties were given an opportunity to interrogate him". This is actually with a double condition: the first condition, that the person who gives the statement is a witness in the trial; The second condition is that the parties were given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The requirement that the person who gave the statement is a witness in the trial is expressed in the fact that the witness appears in court and comes up to testify on the witness stand, so that the court is able to get an impression of his reaction and words. The requirement that the parties be given an opportunity to cross-examine that witness is intended to enable the examination of the credibility of his statements in court, including to give the defense an opportunity to determine the very existence of contradictions that were discovered between the witness's statements given before the trial and his statements in his testimony during the trial.
As a rule, Section 10A(a) The Evidence Ordinance refers to those cases in which the witness gave his statement that was recorded, while during his testimony in court he gives contradictory statements. However, sometimes we are dealing with witnesses who did appear to testify, but in practice refused to answer the questions asked; witnesses who decided to fill their mouths and remain silent in response to questions on behalf of the parties or on behalf of the court (the "silent witness"); Witnesses who gave inconsistent answers or witnesses who answered with a stack of unclear words in order to avoid answering questions (the "nonsensical witness"). The Supreme Court (with an expanded panel of 11 justices) discussed these issues in the framework of the Additional Criminal Hearing 4390/91 State of Israel v. Haj Yahya, IsrSC 47(3) 661 (hereinafter: "Hajj Yahya"), and there it was determined, by a majority opinion, that the test for the definition of a "witness at trial" is a physical test. A witness in the trial is someone who appeared on the witness stand after being duly summoned and warned by law. A person's status as a "witness" is not examined according to the content of his statements in court, but rather in a factual manner in accordance with his status according to the indictment, the summons to testify, and the appearance on the witness stand in court. Therefore, even a witness who is silent or refuses to answer the questions answers the "witness" box. It should be noted that the case law has determined that a witness who cooperates partially, i.e., is not a "silent witness" or a "nonsensical witness", but who is in the range between the poles, does not fall outside the scope of a provision Section 10A to the Evidence Ordinance. In a Criminal Appeal 897/12 Khaled Salhab v. State of Israel (July 30, 2012) Reference was given to a situation in which a witness answered only partially to the questions he was asked and did not provide an answer as to the substantive matters at the heart of the dispute, and it was determined that in accordance with the Hajj Yahya ruling and the rulings that applied this rule, the law of such a witness is the same as that of a witness who refused to say a word, in the sense that it would apply to both Section 10A to the Evidence Ordinance, where each case will be examined on its own merits.