However, even if the testimony is accepted internally, there is still a need for the second test - an external examination. Through it, the court examines, assuming that the witness is telling the truth, what is the significance of the testimony and its weight: personal data of the witness, his circumstances, the event of identification, prior acquaintance between the witness and the suspect, the conditions of visibility and lighting, the distance and angle from which the identification was made, and more. And a final example - whether there is a defect in the identification process that may reduce its weight. For example, until he identified the defendant after hearing his name from the police or from another source. All of these can indicate that even if the testimony passes the internal test, it is still fundamentally wrong: it is a mistake and not a lie, i.e., a deliberate decision not to tell the truth. "In a situation like this... If the identifying witness wishes to tell the truth and believes in his testimony, we should focus mainly on the second difficulty, which is whether, despite the witness's desire to be precise, he is mistaken' (Criminal Appeal 2098/08 Pharaonic v. State of Israel, para. 6 (December 28, 2011) (hereinafter: the Pharaonic case). Compare further: Criminal Appeal 9040/05 Ohayon v. State of Israel, para. 16 (December 7, 2006); Criminal Appeal 8902/11 Haziza v. State of Israel, paragraphs 49-50 (November 15, 2012) (hereinafter: the Haziza case))."
See also what is stated in a criminal appeal 2076/21 Waked v. State of Israel (30.7.2023):
"The identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the offense by eyewitness testimony, with its limitations, was and remains one of the most important evidentiary tools in the criminal proceeding, while the use of this tool will be made with the utmost common sense and with the necessary caution (see, for example, with respect to a conviction based on a single identification testimony: Criminal Appeal 339/80 Adika v. State of Israel, IsrSC 34(4) 106, 109-110 (1980)).