In light of the above, the defendant's two motions must be discussed, one to invalidate the statements of the organs and documents they provided by virtue of the rule of invalidation of evidence obtained by improper means, and the other to grant her remedies that stem from the protection of justice on the basis of the same principles. In both cases, as stated, a balance must be struck between the defendant's rights to a fair trial, insofar as they apply to a corporation, between the social need to maintain the fairness of the proceeding, and the goals of the criminal proceeding, which are centered on prosecuting offenders.
However, since these two issues are generally discussed separately, and the main rulings on these issues are different from each other, I will first discuss the rule of disqualification and then the defense from justice, which in this case, according to the defendant, is selective enforcement.
5.1 Invalidation of the statements and testimony of the organs against Siemens Israel by virtue of the rule of invalidation of evidence obtained by improper means
The defendant's argument is that insofar as she has the rights as a criminal defendant, and mainly the right to a fair trial, any evidence obtained through the testimonies of the organs against her should be disqualified from being used as evidence against her by virtue of the rule of invalidation of evidence obtained by improper means, beginning with the Yishkarov ruling. The defendant argues that granting immunity to organs to testify against her is an improper act, since on the one hand, their behavior cannot be attributed to the defendant, and by virtue of this attribution to her the commission of criminal offenses, and on the other hand, to allow them to testify against her.
The rule regarding the invalidity of evidence obtained illegally was established in the Issacharov ruling. First, the rule was established: "The premise of the admissibility of evidence...and according to which evidence that is relevant is admissible in trial" (the words of the Honorable Justice D. Beinisch at paragraph 63 of the judgment, at p. 78). This rule, according to the court, requires "the disclosure of the factual truth, the fight against criminality, and the protection of public safety" (ibid.). However, the court further ruled that the court has discretion to disqualify such admissible evidence, within the scope of the criminal proceeding: "If it is found that the evidence was obtained unlawfully and its admission at trial would create a material violation of the defendant's right to a fair trial" (ibid.), the rule of disqualification is the disqualification. Later on, the court discussed three reasons that are accepted in the various legal systems for the rule of disqualification. The first is the protection of the rights of the interrogee, suspect or accused, and mainly the right to a fair trial. This reasoning is also known as the protective, defensive reasoning; The second is the education of the law enforcement authorities, the police, and the State Attorney's Office, also known as the preventive reasoning, and the third is the preservation of the legal system and the judicial process and the public's trust in them, which I will refer to hereinafter: the systemic consideration. This consideration is at the heart of the demand for a fair trial. In the Yescherov ruling, the preventive and systemic reasoning was adopted, and the preventive reasoning of educating law enforcement authorities was rejected.