At no stage was the defendant said or asked to testify against Shadi.
Counsel for the defendant refers to the words of the investigator A.A.13 In his main interrogation:
"Q. You asked the defendant to incriminate the"פ "Opening on the"פ"?
- Yes.
- In what framework did you ask him for it? ?
- In the course of the interrogation, you can hear it, How did I ask him".
(Prov. p. 70, paras. 28-31).
However, the context of the matter is a request from the defendant to say his version and arguments against Shadi's statements, which the defendant calls lies.
Counsel for the defendant further refers to the words of A.A.13 that he offered the defendant to give testimony against Shadi and his son a witness. (Prov. p. 267, paras. 19-25) and refers to this.A.13 confirms that he wanted the defendant to say about at least one place that he gave money to Shadi (Prov. p. 267, paras. 29-32), and in the matter of the money that Bashir received at p. 268.
The arguments that try to attribute this to the negotiations for the defendant to be a state witness should be rejected. Things are taken out of context. The context of the matter as it emerges from P/172 is in relation to the defendant's claim that Shadi is lying.
The defendant is asked, if this is his claim, to testify to this in a detailed testimony.
The defendant says that Shadi received money, which is an admission by the defendant on the one hand, and on the other hand, there is a contradiction to Shadi's version that he claims that he did not receive money. When an interrogator asks the suspect to detail his version, which relates to this suspect's version, and contradicts the version of another suspect, there is nothing wrong, and there is also no connection to the status of a state witness.
The suspect, the defendant, is asked to give his version and not be satisfied with general statements about Shadi.
Nothing was offered, and there is nothing between this and negotiations for the defendant to be a state witness.