And so is paragraph 12:
"Indeed, it is difficult to see the face of the shooter-attacker in the film. However, a person can also be identified based on a set of characteristics of his appearance beyond his face: his gait; his facial profile; wigs for his life; nose; his physique; etc. In our case, there is no difficulty in getting an impression of these characteristics in the security tape, and therefore there is no impediment in principle to identifying the appellant with certainty as the shooter, even though it is difficult to see his face."
In a Criminal Appeal 2076/21 Waked v. State of Israel (July 30, 2023) held:
"Moreover, the court is also entitled to be impressed by the appearance of its eyes and to make determinations as to the identity of a defendant, and sometimes its judicial role even requires it to do so. He has the authority to identify the defendant even when it is necessary to compare the image of the defendant to that seen from a photograph or camera footage. Sometimes, there is not necessarily an advantage to identifying the defendant by an eyewitness or by a professional expert over the court's impression based on the appearance of his eyes, when the identification does not require expertise or unique familiarity with the defendant in order to identify him (Demjanjuk, at pp. 329-330). However, even in the case of identification by the court, there remain inherent difficulties in the reliability of the identification itself, all the more so since the court's impression does not stand the test of cross-examination. Therefore, the court must exercise extreme caution when determining the identification of a defendant based on the appearance of his eyes (Criminal Appeal 4204/07 Suissa v. State of Israel, para. 10 (October 23, 2008))."
In a Criminal Appeal 3834/20 Kalpon v. State of Israel (July 29, 2021) was held as follows:
"In practice, the appeal at hand revolves mainly around the identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the offense, and in doing so, his identification as the figure seen in the security camera footage in dispute. It has been ruled more than once that although the court is required to exercise extreme caution in doing so, it is entitled to rely on the appearance of the defendant's eyes and his impression of the defendant's appearance in order to identify him, and this, inter alia, 'based on a comparison with any objective evidence such as a photo, video or voice recording'. In the meantime, it was held that 'as long as this is not an impression that requires expertise, there is nothing wrong with this' (see: Criminal Appeal 4204/07 Suissa v. State of Israel, para. 10 (October 23, 2008); and see also: Criminal Appeal 6244/12 Sabbaneh v. State of Israel, para. 30 (November 11, 2015); Criminal Appeal 7679/14 Zahadeh v. State of Israel, paragraph 63 of the opinion of Justice N. Sohlberg (August 15, 2016); Criminal Appeal 3162/17 Zaitsev v. State of Israel, para. 15 (October 19, 2017); Criminal Appeal 7007/15 Shmil v. State of Israel, para. 28 (September 5, 2018))."