In light of all this, the Supreme Court ruled in a certain case that there is no evidentiary difficulty in the admissibility of a recording documenting the content of the main conversation, even if it is a copy of that conversation. This is because, according to his approach: "In view of technological developments, which narrow the gap that existed in the past between an original document and its copy, and in light of the flexibility of the rules of admissibility of evidence and the emphasis on the question of the weight of evidence, there is no longer a clear reason to disqualify a copy of a recording. This is to the extent that the litigant, who wishes to submit it, declares that he does not have the original recording, and the copy is presumed to be a reliable copy of that recording. In this situation, there will be room to consider the disqualification of the copy of the recording as evidence, only where the person requesting the disqualification will present concrete evidence that raises a real concern that the recording is forged. Otherwise, the recording should not be disqualified, on the basis of the "best evidence" rule, and this alone. Needless to say, objections as to the quality of the recording or the reliability of the recorder will be taken into account when determining the weight of the evidence."
- In a particular case, the Supreme Court added the conditions of admissibility, with regard to the technical conditions for recording determinations, while holding that:
" The conditions of technical admissibility are appropriate for years past, when tapes were used to record the content of a conversation, and less so today, when the use of mobile phone applications and computers for the purposes of recording and copying a conversation is a breached vision. However, while the defense is of the opinion that due to technological development, the conditions of admissibility should be even more precise, my opinion is that only some of those conditions should be met. At the end of the day, the technical admissibility conditions set out in the case law are intended to ensure that the recording is reliable, in the sense that it faithfully reflects what is stated in it. In light of the technological developments to which we are exposed on a daily basis, I do not believe that it is necessary to stand on the end of Y. in proving each and every one of the conditions. This is especially true with regard to the conditions regarding proving the integrity of the recording device and the competence of the recorder.