2.2.b. The accuser's arguments regarding the fairness of the proceeding
The accuser claims that the defendant's rights as such to a fair trial have not been violated, since she is entitled to deny and defend herself against the charges attributed to her. However, the accuser further argues that even if the court finds that there is a certain violation of the defendant's rights as a corporation, it should be remembered that this is a relative right that stands in contrast to other rights. This is especially true when it comes to a corporation that is less difficult to harm in the framework of criminal proceedings than to a human being.
2.2.c. The accuser's arguments regarding selective enforcement
The accuser claims with regard to selective enforcement that she made balances, while granting immunity to the organs, in order to incriminate the corporation and also took proceedings against Siemens International. According to her, there is a difference between Siemens Israel and Siemens International, as well as a difference between the organs that received immunity by virtue of the state's witness agreement and Siemens Israel, permissible distinctions that allow Siemens Israel to be prosecuted only by the side of the alleged bribe-givers. As for Siemens International, the accuser claims that the difference between Siemens International and Siemens Israel is that Siemens International is a foreign company, with all the difficulties involved in prosecuting it.
As for the organs, Aaronson, Weiss and Hirsch, the accuser claims that there is a relevant difference between them and Siemens Israel, since a state-witness agreement was entered into with them. According to her, the state's witness agreements are reasonable and were necessary due to the nature of the investigation in order to prosecute both the defendant but also the recipients of the bribe, five of whom were indeed convicted as part of this proceeding. The accuser argues that at this stage, without hearing evidence, it should be assumed in favor of the accuser that these agreements were required from an investigative point of view. The accuser further claims that this will be proven in the main proceeding.