Therefore, I am satisfied that The intensity of the violation of the defendant's right to a fair trial due to the receipt of the seizures from the warehouse as evidence, despite the defect in not bringing witnesses, is low in the circumstances of the case.
The second group of considerations It deals with the extent to which the unfairness in obtaining the evidence affects its reliability and evidentiary value, and whether it is evidence that has a separate and independent existence from the illegality involved in obtaining it. In this context, two questions must be examined: first, to what extent the illegality involved in obtaining the evidence may affect the reliability and evidentiary value of the evidence, so that if a concern arises about the credibility of the evidence, this can support the invalidation of the evidence; Second, it is necessary to examine whether the existence of the evidence is independent and separate from the illegality involved in obtaining it, and if so, the improper means of investigation do not affect the content of the evidence, which constitutes a consideration in favor of its admission at trial. Therefore, it was determined that with regard to artisanal evidence, the illegality will usually not impair its credibility and admissibility.
In our case, we are dealing with the seizure of objective evidence, the existence of which is independent and separate from the defects that occurred in the conduct of the search, so that there is no concern that its reliability or evidentiary value will be harmed.
The third group of considerations It deals with the necessary balance between the effect of the disqualification of evidence on the work of doing justice, while examining the nature of the offense attributed to the defendant and the degree of its severity. In this context, consideration must be given to the question of whether the social cost involved in the disqualification of vision is greater than the social benefit that will arise from it. The main parameters in this regard are the importance of the evidence to prove guilt, the nature of the offense attributed to the defendant and the degree of severity of it.