Reference to this is also found in the Family Appeal Directive regarding "State Witness" (Guideline 4.2201 (50.031)), and I will refer to what is stated therein, although they are not what determine the definition and what is required: "A distinction must be made between a situation in which the interrogee initiates negotiations and the signing of a state-witness agreement - in which case his initiative should be seen as taking a risk that the matter will be used against him... When the interrogee lies or uses the framework of the negotiations as a ploy in order to obtain benefits or other improper purposes from the lawlessness, then the things said in the framework of these negotiations are not worthy of confidentiality..."
Counsel for the defendant refers to the Criminal Appeal Rule 1292/96 1309/06 Yahya Tork v. State of Israel (July 20, 2009) (the "Torek Rule"), and argues that in light of the Torek Rule, the court must disqualify the "questioning" (the reference to the investigation P/172) and not draw any factual conclusion from it.
This argument must be rejected, and the acceptance of P/172 as admissible evidence fully meets the tests set out in the Torek Rule.
In the Tork ruling, the court discussed the question of the admissibility of confessions made during negotiations to conclude a state-witness agreement, and the admissibility of confessions given after the agreement was signed, when it was breached and an indictment was filed against the suspect.
It was ruled that at the negotiation stage, the initiative test is at the center of the examination of whether or not the confessions are admissible. When the initiative is the investigator's, they are inadmissible, and when the initiative is the interrogee's, there is no impediment to using them against him.
I do not find room to expand on additional situations to which reference is made in the Turk Rule, since the facts described there are not as in our case.
I will note, however, that it was ruled that the reasons underlying the initiative test, which we referred to at the negotiation stage, are not valid at the stage after the signing of the agreement, and at the stage after the signing of the initiative, the initiative no longer constitutes an exclusive evidentiary indication of the freedom of will of the interrogee.