5.2.3. Remedy in case of protection from justice
We must now move on to the third and final stage of examining the appropriate remedy. Even if it were a matter of selective enforcement, or a violation of the fairness of the proceeding, and at this stage it is not possible to determine this, the application of the protection from justice is limited, and measures that are less detrimental to the goals of the criminal proceeding must be examined. Thus it was held in the Borowitz case (ibid., at p. 807, at paragraph 21):
"Not every misdemeanor committed by the investigating or accusing authorities or any other involved authority will justify the conclusion that the indictment should be dismissed for reasons of protection from justice, whether because the balance between the conflicting public interests prevails in the conduct of the trial, or (which seems to be the common situation) because the court has other tools to deal with the failure of the authorities' proceedings. The cancellation of a criminal proceeding for reasons of protection from justice is therefore an extreme step that the court does not need except in the most exceptional cases. Usually, the defendant will be required to show that there was a causal connection between the improper conduct of the authorities and the violation of his rights, however, the possibility that the violation of the sense of justice and fairness will not be attributed not to the scandalous conduct of the authorities, but to their negligence, or even to circumstances that are not dependent on the authorities at all but which are binding and clearly establish the conclusion that in the given case it will not be possible to guarantee the defendant a fair trial. or that the existence of the criminal proceeding will seriously harm the sense of justice and fairness. But it seems that such a state of affairs is not expected to occur except in the most exceptional cases."
The Honorable President A. Grunis further ruled in the High Court of Justice case 9131/05 Nir Am v. Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor, (2006, in paragraph 5 of his judgment, hereinafter: the Nir Am case):