According to Mr. Herzog's testimony, the journalist must ask every citizen about the reason for his arrival at the station (p. 62). He also said that the diary would not allow entry without a justified reason. The witness further clarified that in the event of a mass brawl, free entry of the opposing teams would not be allowed, but according to the procedure, a police car would be stationed at the entrance and would ensure the separation between the detainees and the opposing teams.
- Policeman Bisan Suleiman, who served as a patrol coordinator, testified that he was aware of complaints filed by the Cherbi family against the plaintiff (p. 56). The witness confirmed that he knew that there was an ongoing dispute between the plaintiff and the Cherbi family. The witness was on his way out of the station when the incident unfolded. According to him, prior to his departure, various instructions were given to the journalist (N/21), but no explicit instructions were given in relation to the plaintiff and the Cherbi family. The witness repeated the version that the journalist was the one who supervised the entry and exit from the station, but added that "[...] The goal doesn't do the job very well." (p. 58). According to him, sometimes the gate remains open and not closed, and sometimes the diary is too busy to supervise (p. 58).
The journalist was not summoned to testify. There is no evidence as to whether defendants 2-3 were checked before they entered the yard, when they entered and what they said to the diary when they asked to enter.
- From the aforesaid evidence, it is necessary to conclude that the station police were negligent and did not fulfill their duty to protect the plaintiff from the possibility of an attack by members of the Charbi family. We saw that the dispute between the plaintiff and the Cherby family was known and could and should have been expected that if there was a meeting between the plaintiff and the Cherby family, it might spill over into a violent incident. Every police officer must understand that such an encounter must be prevented and that the complainants must be separated from the plaintiff, who was arrested for assaulting the complainants.
- It is also possible to clearly determine that the police officers at the station did not act as expected to be. When there is an expectation of acts of violence, actions are required to prevent the encounter. No such actions were taken. Thus, for example, it was expected that before the plaintiff was transported to the station's yard, an examination would be conducted as to who was in the yard and whether he had the potential to endanger the plaintiff. It was simply possible to make sure that the yard was closed to visitors for a few minutes in order to ensure the exit of the police car with the detainees. The information regarding the plaintiff's departure to the yard was in the hands of the diary who wrote down the names of those who left. It was easy and simple to clarify to him who the complainants were and to instruct him to prevent them from entering the yard for the time required for the detainees to leave.
- The exit of a detainee with his back handcuffed into a yard open to the public, without any supervision and supervision of who is in the yard and who is dangerous to the detainees, cannot be considered a reasonable procedure. A reasonable procedure should separate the detainees from the public arriving at the station. This is necessary both for the security of the detainees, for the safety of the public, and for the sake of preserving the dignity of the detainees.
The separation between the detainees and the public could have been done in simple ways, either by making sure who entered and when entered the yard, or by separating the exit openings. There is no difficulty, and I have not been presented with any difficulty, to remove detainees from the station through the back doorway, which is used for some of the units. No explanation was given as to why this opening could not be used to remove detainees.