The same applies to what was said in a criminal appeal 602/06 Avraham v.  State of Israel, Verse 4 (22.01.2007):

"The court's impression of what it sees is one of the most important 'working tools' at its disposal, and it is an important and central pillar in determining the reliability of witnesses, examining object evidence, etc.  Not only is the court entitled to make use of this tool, but its judicial role requires it to use the sight of its eyes, and as long as it is not an impression that requires expertise, there is nothing wrong with that."

See also the court's ruling in Criminal Appeal 440/87 Haddad v.  State of Israel, IsrSC 34(1) 793, according to which the court's impression of listening to the tape is not the "production" of evidence, but rather the judge's direct impression of objective evidence submitted before him, and through one of his senses.

Therefore, as a rule, there is no impediment to the court using its senses with due caution, including using the sight of its eyes to determine whether the defendant before it is the person presented in the video.  After watching several times the face of the figure recorded on the security camera near a building at 22 Nardor Street, I found a great resemblance to the face of the defendant who appeared before us in court, as well as to his appearance in the photographic footage of his police interrogations.  However, I found it necessary to exercise extreme caution and not to determine with certainty and absolutely that this is the defendant, but to suffice with the determination that there is a great similarity between the face of the character documented in the video in question and the defendant who appeared before us and was also documented in his police interrogations.

93. As mentioned, thanks to the footage, the defendant was identified as a suspect in the shooting by Policeman Adna Allin, who at the relevant time served as a NCO for the Ethiopian community living in Jaffa, in the Community Policing Office. Officer Alin presented a memorandum he had drawn up on July 21, 2022, which indicates that he had watched a video he received from Officer Aharon Cohen, and identified Ashbir Tarkin as a suspect, on the basis of his acquaintance with him and his family, and even knew how to provide his residential address (P/63, p.  307 of Prut).  I was impressed by the honest and reliable testimony of Officer Allin that he knew how to identify the defendant in the photographic footage that was sent to him, and I did not find this testimony to be associated, but because the question arose as to which of the videos was brought to his attention, since it turned out that the photo attached to the memo he edited was not taken from the video in which the defendant was seen in the public park.  As noted, the possibility that a number of videos were brought to the attention of Officer Allin in order to identify the person who watched them was not ruled out.  I found full confidence in Officer Allin's version, when he said: "To me to the mobile phone one video was sent to me this is what I identified The video of the suspect I don't know beyond that I don't know how many videos were sent" (p.  314 of Prut).  He later clarified again that he had seen the face of that person in the video and thus was able to identify the defendant, who is known to him personally, by virtue of his position as the NCO of the Ethiopian community in Jaffa for about 7 years.
94. In support of the testimony of Officer Allin, according to which he saw a video in which the defendant's face was observed, and in this way he was able to identify him, I found in the testimony of Officer Ziv Sardes, who was one of the policemen who arrived at the defendant's address together with Officer Aharon Cohen, after Officer Alin identified the suspect by name. All this because Officer Sardes also stated in his testimony that he was exposed to a number of videos, both the one that documented the scene of the shooting in the playground, and the one in which the suspect was seen under the building while removing his helmet from his head.  In his testimony, he said: "A video that Emanuel showed me, of, I don't remember exactly the details of the video.  of a person who has some kind of law with another.  going, after X Time that I don't know how to estimate at the moment, but short, it comes back.  Shooting at the other person with whom he had the argument.  ...  and disappeared from the scene.  ...  I am reminded of something else.  In another video, the suspect can be seen under a building and taking off his helmet.  I don't remember, put it back and so on, but leave the place, where it is clearly visible.  He and the bicycle and the objects." When asked when he saw the video in question, Officer Sardes replied: "Before we got to him" (p.  137 of Pruth).  Hence, the fact that the video in which the defendant's face was clearly seen under the building at 22 Nardor Street was distributed to all the police officers, strengthens Officer Allin's version that he watched this video and thus identified the defendant, whom he knew as aforesaid in the course of his job.

The searches conducted on the defendant's body, the building's warehouse and the defendant's apartment

95. Following the identification of the defendant as a suspect in the shooting in the footage by Officer Allin, police officers Aharon Cohen, Ziv Sardes and Emanuel Aviv arrived at the defendant's residential address. The police spoke with the defendant's mother at the entrance to apartment No.  4 on the second floor of the residential building, and as a result she called the defendant.  At that time, a telephone suddenly rang, and as a result, it was discovered that the defendant was at the time on the entrance floor of the residential building, and was immediately located by the policemen who descended on a site on the staircase to the entrance floor, following the phone ringing.
96. In this framework, three separate searches were carried out one after the other: an external search of the defendant's body; A search of the storage room of the residential building and a search of the apartment where the defendant and his family lived.

Testimonies of the police officers who carried out the searches

97. Policeman Aharon Cohen He presented an action report he prepared on July 20, 2022, which shows, inter alia, that while he was conducting searches at the scene of the shooting, he was sent a video and a photo of a suspect apparently of Ethiopian descent. Officer Cohen called Officer Allin, who claimed that the suspect resembled Ashbir Tarkin and gave him his name and address at 8 Saharon Street.  Policeman Cohen and other police officers Arrive at his residential address.  At some point, the sound of a door opening and traffic on the ground floor is heard.  The suspect's mother called him at the request of the police, and then a phone rang from the same direction.  Officer Cohen noted that he went down the stairs and noticed the suspect wearing orange shorts and a shirt She was short in black, wearing black shoes and a black casket hat and facing the door of a warehouse next to the staircase.  The suspect locked the door of the warehouse and put something in his pocket.  Officer Cohen approached the suspect, identified himself to him as a policeman and asked for his name, and he replied that his name was Ashbir Tarkin.  At that time, Officer Cohen smelled a strong smell of alcohol from the suspect's mouth and asked him if he had drunk, and the suspect answered in the affirmative.  At this point, police officers Aviv and Sardes also went down the stairs.  Officer Aviv began interrogating the suspect, and at that time Officer Cohen noticed that the suspect's pants pockets were significantly swollen, and in order to rule out a means of attack, because the offense was committed with a firearm, he searched his body and seized two Samsung phones, a black knife (which he handed over to Officer Sardes), a bundle of keys and bills (which were left in the defendant's possession).  The suspect was questioned and replied that the keys belonged to the house and the storeroom.  Officer Cohen noted that he opened the door of the warehouse and immediately noticed the bicycle and the helmet that matched the documented description.  Afterwards, policeman Yaniv Oshri joined in, and when the suspect was already under arrest, a search was conducted in his apartment (with gloves on his hands).  The suspect led the officers to his room in his parents' apartment.  An upside-down shirt was found on a stroller in the room, which emitted a strong smell of sweat with a symbol on the chest on the left side, matching the suspect's shirt from the scene of the incident.  Near the front door, he noticed long black trousers with pockets on the sides, which met the description documented as they were placed on a bag.  The suspect was wearing black Under Armour shoes that were filled with sand at the bottom.  It was noted that each exhibit (shirt, pants, shoes and two telephones) was placed in a separate envelope, marked at the police station and transferred to the investigative unit for further treatment (P/10).

The search report indicates that a search of the defendant's apartment and warehouse yielded a black short shirt and long black pants in the bedroom, a pair of black shoes and a black knife on the defendant's body; An electric bicycle, a helmet and a bicycle carrying bag in the warehouse, keys to the warehouse and two telephones in the defendant's possession (P/11).  Nothing was mentioned about the presence of witnesses in the search.