As forShape The Confession, In section 9 The law has two requirements Substitution: The confession must be given "in writing" or "before a court" [it should be noted that alongside these two formal requirements, the section also stipulates that "an act that contains some of the right is considered an admission for the purposes of this section"].
- As stated above, the focus of our case is the question of whether Recording of words spoken orally may be considered "Reporter" for the purpose of applying Section 9 to the law.
The question under discussion has not yet been decided in the case law of this court, and contradictory answers to it can be found in the rulings of the trial courts (see, for example: Civil Appeal (Hai District') 35052-11-18 Siso v. Sutail, verse 31 [Nevo] (March 13, 2019) (Judge T. Sharon Netanel); Civil Appeal (District T"A) 1625/08 Yakubov v. Aharonov, verse 8 [Nevo] (May 30, 2010) (Judge Rabbi Levhar Sharon); Civil Case (Tel Aviv District) 3133/00 A. Gvirtzman plans inTax Appeal v. Record Initiation and Development Ltd., verses 6-7 [Nevo] (9.11.2006) (Judge A. Baron)). At the same time, this question was mentioned in the case law of this Court, Other Municipality Requests 6623/11 Albo v. Feldman [Nevo] (January 2, 2014), where there was no need to rule on it. However, the judge A. Hayut She noted there, in an overdue sense, that "the cases in which the law requires that a certain action be done in writing are divided into two types - cases in which there is a substantial reason for the need for a written document and cases in which the written document is required in order to serve as evidence [...] Insofar as the written requirement is to be interpreted in section 9 Law The Statute of Limitations as an evidentiary requirement, it may be held that it can be replaced by another clear evidence" (v. 11; emphasis in original).
Against this background, we will therefore turn to discuss the interpretive question that requires a decision in our case.