With regard to the considerations that the court must take into account in the hearing of the question of whether to apply the rule of disqualification in a given case, the court in the Issacharov case discussed the following considerations (ibid., paragraph 69 of the judgment): disclosure of the truth; The war on criminality and the preservation of public peace, the nature and severity of the illegality that led to the disqualification of the evidence, and the social damage and benefit of the disqualification (including the degree of necessity or necessity of the evidence for the conviction and the severity of the offense).
For an analysis and critique of the judgment, see, among many: Yuval Merin and Rinat Kitay-Sanjaro, "Collins, Miranda and Issacharov – On the Gap Between What Is Desirable and What Is Found in the Issacharov Rule," Mishpatim 36 429 (2007); Boaz Sanjaro, "The rule of inadmissibility of illegally obtained evidence set out in the Issacharov ruling – good news or disappointment?" Law and the Army 19 (2007); Keren Shapira-Ettinger and Ron Shapira, "The Rule of Israeli Sculpting on the Margins of the Issacharov Rule," Din Ve-Devarim 3 427 (2007); Binyamin Blum, "'Exclude Evidence, You Exclude Justice'? A Critical Evaluation of Israel's Exclusionary Rule After Issacharov", 16 SW J. Int`l L. 385 (2010)).
5.1.2. Development of the rule in case law after the Issacharov ruling
After the Issacharov ruling, the question of invalidation of evidence obtained illegally in a number of judgments was discussed (see, for example: Criminal Appeal 1301/06 Estate of Elzam v. State of Israel [published in Nevo] (2009, hereinafter: the Elzem case); Criminal Appeal 9956/05 Shai v. State of Israel [published in Nevo] (2009); a floral matter; Criminal Appeal 2869/09 Zeinati v. State of Israel [published in Nevo] (2011); Criminal Appeal 5956/08 Al-'Uqa v. State of Israel [published in Nevo] (2011, the Al-'Uqa case); Shemesh and Criminal Appeal Authority 10141/09 Ben-Haim v. State of Israel [published in Nevo] (2012, hereinafter: the Ben-Haim case).