See also Criminal Appeal 7758/04 Badr Abdel Qader v. State of Israel (July 19, 2007), where there was talk of a combined investigation by the ISA and the police, and there was ambiguity regarding the stages of the investigation, and the investigation itself was lengthy and over several dates, and it was argued that the manner in which the interrogations were conducted flawed the defendant's right to an attorney and not to incriminate:
"In other words, the right to remain silent of the interrogee Ramez and Osama was not violated. In the circumstances of the case, it was proven that they were aware of their right to remain silent and refrain from self-incrimination... It is not clear that the right to consult a lawyer at all stages of the investigation is a central right in the criminal proceeding (see Criminal Appeal 9897/05 Almagor v. State of Israel (not yet published)). While one rationale that underlies the right is the desire to allow the lawyer to inform the interrogee of his rights, and especially his right not to say anything during the interrogation, there is another central rationale for it, which is the ability of the lawyer to supervise the interrogation process and to be a supervisory body for the integrity of the interrogation and the reliability of the evidence obtained therein, and especially in preventing false confessions (see: Criminal Appeal 5121/98 Issacharov v.The Chief Military Prosecutor, paragraphs 14-16 of the judgment (of May 4, 2006)... Admittedly, the right to counsel is not absolute, and there are various restrictions on its realization, especially with regard to security offenses such as those investigated in this case (see section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Powers - Arrests), 5756-1996 (hereinafter: the Arrests Law).))... Therefore, in examining the weight of a statement taken during the interrogation in which the interrogee was not warned of his right to consult a lawyer, this defect cannot be automatically remedied by proving that the interrogee was aware of his right to remain silent during the interrogation. On the other hand, even if the confession had been obtained by improper means, this does not automatically invalidate any additional confession that was given in its wake. Hence, even with regard to the failure to give lawful notice regarding the right to remain silent or the right to consult an attorney, this omission in itself does not necessarily invalidate the admissibility of the evidence, and here too the matter will be examined in each case on its merits and in light of the circumstances of the case."