In the Issacharov case, where the rule of judicial disqualification was determined, for the first time, the court determined the considerations that must be considered, and they are the same considerations that were discussed in the draft Protection from Justice Law. In the Issacharov case, the Supreme Court discussed the conflicting interests on the issue of the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence. The court noted that the purpose of the criminal proceeding is to reach the truth in order to determine whether the defendant is liable to the law. However, the court added that a false conviction on the one hand, or a wrong acquittal on the other, also harms the administration of justice and the fight against criminality. Therefore, it was held in the Issacharov case that the purpose of exposing the truth in order to bring criminals to justice cannot lead to a violation of the rights of the defendants and the fairness of the proceeding, which are also important purposes in a democratic legal system. The court ruled there that alongside the striving to discover the truth and eradicate crime, the purity of the criminal proceedings and the defendant's right to a fair trial must be preserved (for a review of the doctrine of invalidation in the United States and the Continent, see: Neira Pena, Corporate Criminal Liability, ibid., at p. 206).
The procedure of invalidating evidence obtained illegally is in fact a private case of protection from justice that was settled in case law (although in the bill in which theSDP was amended and the defense of justice was added, there was no reference to this doctrine (on the proper relationship between the doctrines, see: Boaz Sanjaro, "Does the 'Protection from Justice' Have the Power to Do Justice? (Following the arrangement of the defense inthe Criminal Procedure Law)", Defense Attorney 125, pp. 4, 6, hereinafter: Sanjaro, Doing Justice). Regarding the relationship between protection from justice and the doctrine of judicial invalidation, see the words of the Honorable Vice-President, Justice M. Naor, inCriminal Appeal 10477/09 Muhammad Mubarak v. State of Israel, (published in Nevo, 2013, hereinafter: the Mubarak case, at paragraph 153 of her judgment).