From all of the aforesaid it appears that it is not possible to say that the things that were exchanged in the framework of P/172 are in the framework of any negotiations to be the defendant as a state witness.
It is evident that the conditions for negotiations for a state witness in the framework of the interrogation P/172 have not been formulated.
Moreover, an examination of the interrogation photograph P/172 shows that the defendant is the initiator, he is the activist, and he is the one who repeatedly tries to examine possibilities related to the return of the weapons in exchange for relief for him and his son.
Even if you say that these things are negotiations, as alleged, to a state witness, and it is emphasized that there is no substance to this claim, then even then it is an initiative of the defendant.
In addition to all of the above regarding the fact that the initiative under 172 was the initiative of the defendant himself, it should be noted that the defendant's counsel also tried to initiate negotiations regarding the return of the weapons. This initiative testifies to the fact that the defendant was interested in the negotiations and that he initiated the initiative not only by himself but also through his attorney, and that the initiative is related to the return of the weapons and only for that purpose.
Witness Lior Shaham of the Negev District Court, A.A. 36. The witness testified that on July 25, 2016, when he was serving as an arrest attorney for the Negev District Attorney, the defendant's attorney contacted him after a hearing on the defendant' s case, and asked to speak with him. According to the witness, the defendant's counsel told him that this was an open conversation, and that everyone's goal was to return the weapons, and that he knew a person who knew where they put the weapons and could return the weapons (March 19, 2017, p. 184, question 27 - p. 185, question 10). The witness replied that she assumed that the defense attorney was talking about the defendant, and that the defense attorney asked for some kind of immunity in exchange for his testimony, and that the witness stated that he had no authority to agree to such a thing, but that he could transfer the matter to the parties above him, and he turned to Rabbi Semel Iluz, who told him that the matter would be dealt with and that he (the witness) would stop dealing with it (p. 185, paras. 12-20) and following the conversation he wrote Zach"D" which was filed and marked P/168.