The court further emphasized that: "A litigant, who wishes to submit the recording as evidence, bears the burden of proving its prima facie admissibility, in accordance with the aforementioned conditions. This is when the opposing party may, but is not obligated to, bring its own evidence to prove the technical inadmissibility of the evidence (Salzman, at p. 80; Criminal Appeal 405/80 State of Israel v. Shadmi, IsrSC 35(2) 757 (1981); Criminal Appeal 639/79 Aflalo v. State of Israel, IsrSC 34(3) 561 (1980) (hereinafter: the Aflalo case))."
Under these conditions, there have been flexibility and changes over the years. Thus, with regard to the fourth condition relating to ensuring that no changes were made to the recording, it was held that: "As long as there is no evidence of malicious handling of the recording in order to alter it in one way or another, the fact that parts of it cannot be interpreted or understood or that parts of it were not recorded or deleted by mistake do not invalidate as evidence what can be heard and understood" (Criminal Appeal 331/88 Haluba v. State of Israel, IsrSC 44(4) 141, 146 (1990).
The case law also recognized the possibility of obtaining a recording when the relevant party to the proceeding approved the content of the conversation (Criminal Appeal 6411/98 Manbar v. State of Israel, IsrSC 55 (2) 150 (2000); Criminal Appeal 2801/95 Corkin v. State of Israel, IsrSC 52(1) 791 (1998)).
- In addition, the case law dealt with two conditions relating to the admissibility of a recording and which are prima facie relevant to our case - first, with the question of whether it is possible to obtain a copy of a recording differently from the source of the recording, and secondly, with the conditions of the technical admissibility of the recording, which constitutes digital evidence.
With regard to obtaining a copy of a recording, the question of whether it is possible to obtain a copy of a recording, despite the "best evidence" rule, which states that in order to prove the content of a document, the original document must be presented to the court. With regard to this rule, the court detailed that over the years exceptions to the rule have been created, and moreover, that: