Insofar as the right to a fair trial, including the right to remain silent and the right to immunity from self-incrimination, apply to a corporation, and it emerges from the aforesaid that even if so, the latter two are limited in scope in all matters relating to the corporation, these rights are still confronted by the right and duty of the company to fight criminality.
In this regard, the words of the Honorable Justice T. Strasberg-Cohen in the Hachami case (ibid., at p. 755) are appropriate:
"But these rights [for due process], important as they may be, are not absolute. They are confronted by the right and duty of society to fight criminality and to defend itself and each of its members against it; Against them is society's duty towards the victims of crime, whose dignity, liberty, personal safety, and physical and mental well-being are crudely trampled upon by unscrupulous criminals; They are confronted with the need to eradicate crime that harms the delicate fabric of society on the values, normative, private and public levels. The role of a civilized society is to find the proper balance between all of these in such a way that the legal system will have the appropriate tools to enable a fair and efficient trial, to prevent the conviction of the innocent, and to ensure that the guilty are not escaped from justice. The tools for achieving these goals within the framework of the judicial system are, inter alia, criminal procedure and the laws of evidence. Through them, the system makes its way into the depths of the investigation of truth and the administration of essential justice."
It seems that when it comes to a corporation, this should be taken as a central consideration in making the balances made within the framework of the procedures and the laws of evidence.
5.1.3.b. When should the question of the invalidity of the evidence be examined?
The question of whether evidence should be disqualified due to injury to the defendant must be examined at the conclusion of the main proceeding, in accordance with the above principles. This is what the Supreme Court ruled in an expanded panel (by President D. Beinisch, with the concurrence of Justice A. Arbel, Vice President E. Rivlin, Justice (ret.) E. E. Levy, and Justice M. Naor, in contrast to the dissenting opinion of Justices Y. Danziger and A. Rubinstein) in the Shemesh case. In the same matter, the question of when the invalidity of the evidence by virtue of the Issacharov rule should be examined (the court discusses the principles underlying the doctrine of judicial inadmissibility and reaches the conclusion that in view of the flexible and relative nature of this doctrine, and in view of the fact that the theoretical model adopted by the court is a "preventive model" whose main purpose is to preserve the fairness and purity of the criminal proceeding, As a rule, it is appropriate to conduct a judicial inquiry into the question of the admissibility of the evidence, which was claimed to have been obtained illegally, in the framework of the main legal proceeding, as opposed to proceedings relating to the stages of the investigation.