The second part of the minor argument - the claim regarding a series of defects in the interrogation P/172
- As noted, the second part of the minor argument raises a series of claims about flaws in the investigation, including claims of a lack of warning, Violation of the right of the defendant as a suspect to remain silent during his interrogation, Violation of the right to consultation and the right to representation, In addition, the use of improper interrogation methods, including misleading the defendant and enticing him to say things.
As noted above, some of the arguments are beyond the Zuta claim, and I will address them in all their aspects.
Claim of Lack of Warning and Failure to Grant the Right to Counsel
- II"The defendant claimed that the defendant was not read his rights as required by the/172, Therefore, what was said at this stage is not acceptable.
This argument should not be accepted for the following reasons:
His first interrogation on the same date, August 2, 2016, began at 12:05 p.m. with police investigator Eyal Zitoun (A.A. 13), in which the interrogator details to the defendant the suspicions against him, asks him whether he understands the charges against him, the defendant answers in the affirmative, and then the interrogator informs the defendant that an attempt has been made to contact his attorney and he is asked whether he is interested in representation on behalf of the defense attorney, and the defendant answers in the negative and the interrogator asks if the investigation can be started, and the defendant confirms this (P/163 Q. 1-9).
The investigation that took place at this stage was a police investigation, with the intelligence investigation ending more than a week ago, and the defendant was well versed in these facts.
At the end of the interrogation P/163, the defendant signed the written interrogation papers and confirmed what was written therein.
As detailed above, there was a break of about 5 minutes, at which point, the researcher Eyal Zeitoun received instructions from A.A. 24 that he must begin an interrogation of the defendant in another matter in the field of Al-Amb, and for this purpose he must stop the recording of the current interrogation and replace the disc. A.A. 13. He went outside, exchanged a recording disc, and when he returned to the interrogation room, it was the defendant who approached him on his own initiative and raised questions regarding what was written in the interrogation P/163, and he in fact initiated questions and questions about what was said in the framework of P/163 and sought to clarify certain points that he said. In other words, the defendant himself sees the continuation of the interrogation at the beginning of which he was duly warned. This is not a new investigation, but rather a continuation of a discourse regarding the interrogation conducted by A.A. 13.