Finally, as was also stated in the respondents' response, it is not impossible that there was no reason to renew the business license of the Tiberias branch. It appears that the license was renewed because at the time of its renewal at the end of 2023, a decision had not yet been made in the hearing process. One way or another, whether it was a correct decision or a mistake, this does not negate the outcome of the orderly hearing that took place in the case of the petitioners.
- Conflict of interest and prejudice: Throughout the proceedings and even now, an attempt was made on the part of the petitioners, and especially on the part of the petitioner, to present the hearing process and what preceded it as stemming from systematic hostility on the part of the district pharmacist in the Northern District. These arguments have already been discussed and examined in the past, including in a letter from the Director General of the Ministry of Health dated June 20, 2022, which rejected the petitioner's claims. This was after he found that his claims were unfounded, based on rumors, and were clearly intended to cast aspersions on the professionals in the ministry in order to discourage them and prevent them from fulfilling their duties.
The petitioners were unable to substantiate their claims regarding a conflict of interest on the part of any of the hearing panels. There is also concern that instead of focusing on the decision in the hearing itself, an attempt was made to deal with the composition of the hearing as well. In any event, the composition of the hearing committee included three senior professionals in the Ministry of Health, whose conclusions they relied, inter alia, on the opinions of three district pharmacists in other districts, who did not deal with the petitioners' affairs at all. All of this was to ensure that the decision was made at the hearing without any fear of any conflict of interest or bias. Therefore, these arguments of the petitioners are also rejected.
- Disqualification of evidence that was the basis of the hearing: The petitioners argued that the findings of the audit should be disqualified due to two defects that they pointed out, and whose examination shows that there is no substance to the petitioners' claims in this matter.
One alleged flaw is that the audit team did not wear identification tags when conducting the audit, in contravention of section 608 of the Pharmacists Ordinance, which is entitled "Duty to Identify". This provision does state that a supervisor may use his powers only when performing his duties, while he is "openly wearing a badge identifying him and his position" and that he is in possession of a certificate attesting to his position and his powers. Although the respondents confirmed that the audit team apparently did not wear identification badges, there was no reason to intervene in the decision at the hearing because there was no reason to disqualify the audit on this grounds. This is both because the inspection team fully identified with his arrival at the Tiberias branch and also because of the early acquaintance that the local employees had with the inspection team. In this situation, the purpose of the need to wear the identification tags was fulfilled, and therefore, despite the fact that they were not worn, it appears that this was nothing more than a technical defect that did not invalidate the audit that was conducted.