"…this equalization overly hinders investigation and prosecution. And above all, it should not be forgotten that corporations and individuals have entirely different nature, among other things because corporations lack human dignity."
Her suggestion is (ibid.): "...to grant corporations just the rights which are in accordance with its special nature".
I am of the opinion that even if the right to remain silent and the right against self-incrimination should be granted to a corporation in certain circumstances, and as I have noted, the matter raises difficult questions that I am not required to decide, they should not be granted in their full scope. It must be taken into account that this is a corporation, primarily, in a case like the one before me in which the organs, the human beings, have waived their own rights in order to deliver messages. After all, it is certainly possible that the organ that committed the offense, and whose actions are attributed to the company, confesses, even without the agreement of a state witness, or gives over documents that were in his possession. In such a case, in my opinion, he should not be prevented from doing so in order to enable the corporation to maintain its right to remain silent or its right against self-incrimination. This is similar to accomplices to an offense who are on trial together, where even then the confession of one of them affects the rights of the other, then these questions arise in their full severity, and even then in many cases the testimony is permitted with certain qualifications (see: Zandberg, The Rights of Defendants Beginning with Chapter 8.2, which deals with the question of the accused witness, in these and other aspects, ibid., Beginning at p. 122). The same is true in this case, in which Aharonson Weiss and Hirsch gave testimony after receiving immunity.
In a case where the corporation and the organ are prosecuted together (or as in the case before me they would have been tried together had it not been for the immunity), it should be remembered that at the end of the day, the perpetrator of the offense is a human being, the responsibility of the corporation is derived or appended to its own actions, so if the human organ confesses, then its actions can be attributed to the corporation, even if the corporation is deprived of the right to remain silent. And if he submits documents that substantiate his guilt, they can be admitted, even if the corporation, if they had been asked to do so, would have claimed immunity from self-incrimination.