In the framework of the judgment below, the question of the admissibility of the evidence and the claims raised as aforesaid in the framework of the minor trial, which was agreed upon and decided to be decided in the judgment.
With regard to the claim regarding the lack of warning, and the additional arguments regarding the same proceeding defined by the defendant's counsel "questioning", counsel for the defendant seeks to rely on the Issacharov rule (Criminal Appeal 5121/98 Raphael Issacharov v. Chief Military Prosecutor et al. (May 4, 2006), and with respect to the claim of inadmissibility in light of an argument about negotiations with a state witness on the Tork rule (Criminal Appeal 1292/06, 1309/06 Yehya Torek v. Israel Land Reform (July 20, 2009).
There is no dispute regarding the rest of the defendant's interrogations with the police and it was agreed to submit them, and the dispute is with respect to that interrogation defined by the defendant's attorney as an "interrogation" dated August 2, 2016 (P/172-T/172B).
The Evidence
- The following witnesses testified on behalf of the accuser:
Witnesses on behalf of the Intelligence Division of the Negev District Attorney's Office:
- A.A. 34, Negev District Commander, an intelligence officer who conducted most of the interrogations conducted against the defendant on behalf of the Intelligence Department, on three different dates: 18 July 2016, 19 July 2016, and 24 July 2016. In his testimony, he emphasized and reiterated that his main role was to try to extract information about the weapons from the defendant in an attempt to retrieve them. He emphasized and clarified that the defendant was not promised favors, that the defendant was not asked to incriminate others, and that the interrogations were carried out in accordance with the intelligence procedures, in secret, for which a memorandum was filed (P/167).
- A.A. 33, Negev District Commander, intelligence coordinator who was present at the meetings held between the defendant and A.A. 34. He documented them in the reports which were compiled in P/167. The defendant's interrogations were carried out in his office. The witness emphasized that the purpose of the interrogation was to return the weapons, and made it clear to the defendant that these were intelligence conversations without recordings or documentation.