Over time, a number of tests have been developed in case law in order to deal with the evidentiary complexity accompanying the identification testimony, and in particular with regard to the two weak points of this testimony - false identification and mistaken identification (Criminal Appeal 8902/11 Haziza v. State of Israel, para. 48 (November 15, 2012)).
The first test deals with the fear of false identification and focuses on a subjective examination that concerns the credibility of the identifying witness and the sincerity of the testimony. In doing so, 'the details of the testimony will be examined: the degree of clarity, the existence or absence of contradictions, the content of the testimony, and the extent to which the court believes that the witness is describing what his eyes have indeed seen' (Abu Raqeq, at paragraph 5).
The second test deals with the concern of a mistake in identification and focuses on an objective examination of the reliability of the identification in itself and the correctness of the testimony, and in the framework of which the circumstances and conditions surrounding the identification will be examined, including the conditions of identification - the angle of view, the conditions of vision and the state of lighting; prior acquaintance between the witness and the suspect; personal data of the witness; the length of time the witness was exposed to the suspect; as well as the socio-ethnic affiliation of the suspect and the witness (ibid.).
On the practical level, the practice of conducting an identification lineup at the interrogation stage has emerged, which is intended to examine the witness's eyeprint through objective tests. However, not every case requires an identification lineup, and this is the case when there is prior acquaintance between the eyewitness and the accused. In these cases, we are not dealing with the identification of the defendant, but rather with pointing to him, which is based on the credibility of the witness, taking into account the circumstances of the scene of the incident and the reliability of the identification testimony in accordance with the two tests detailed above (Criminal Appeal 779/19 Abu Madi'am v. State of Israel, para. 12 (July 22, 2019); Kedmi, at p. 1178).