Criminal Case (Tel Aviv) 4368-05-16 State of Israel v. Siemens Israel Ltd. - part 110

Although in the case before me there is no claim that the interrogation of the organs was unlawful, the defendant's claim that their testimony was invalid stems from the granting of immunity to the organs,  which, according to the defendant, constitutes an improper act by the prosecuting authorities.  In order to examine whether the granting of immunity was required in the circumstances of the case, it is necessary to wait for the conclusion of the proceeding, and therefore I will not elaborate on the analysis of the aforementioned rulings.  However,  the message that emerges from all of them is softening the Issacharov rule and a willingness to recognize the rule of disqualification in many more cases.  In these rulings, everyone was willing to declare a commitment to upholding the right of suspects and defendants to a fair trial.  In addition,  the consideration of the severity of the offense was omitted as a consideration that would lead to the inadmissibility of evidence by virtue of the rule of disqualification (the Farhi case and the Al-Uqa case),  and the test of the necessity of proof (the Al-Uqa case and the Ben-Haim case)  was omitted for a detailed analysis of the judgments. See: Boaz Sanjaro, "The Rule of Invalidation of Evidence Obtained by Improper Means Develops, but still unwilling to pay a social price (and to be acquitted of guilt for a serious offense while he is still alive)", Mishpatim on the 4th Circuit 25 (2012).  However, in the Shemesh case, it was held, by a majority opinion, that the rule of disqualification should not be applied at the investigation stage, in a proceeding under section 43 of the Arrests Ordinance.  The court there reiterated, in a majority opinion, that the conceptual basis for the disqualification rule is based on the corrective and systemic considerations,  and ruled that the  "corrective model" that attributes importance to the education of investigative officials should not be taken into account.  In other words, the examination will be of the circumstances of granting immunity in the test of the fairness of the proceeding.