"It should be remembered that the trial court has at its disposal a variety of means to deal with the flaws that occurred in the filing of the indictment. The court can make use of moderate and proportionate remedies that do not amount to the cancellation of the indictment. Thus, for example, he can order the dismissal of specific charges or take into account the flaws that occurred in the indictment process at the stage of determining the defendant's sentence."
In other words, the court must choose the least severe measure possible that will be able to cure those defects (see in this regard: Dov Gilad Cohen, "Preliminary Arguments – Three Practical Innovations: Hearing, Protection from Justice and Statute of Limitations," Hasanegor 164, pp. 4, 7 (2010).
Therefore, if it turns out that the prosecution of the defendant constituted selective enforcement, or that the results of granting immunity to the principals while prosecuting the principals harm the sense of justice, it would be appropriate to continue to examine the extent of the violation of equality, the degree of selectivity in enforcement, the severity of the offense, and in light of them, to consider what is the appropriate remedy, and whether there is no more proportionate measure that will less harm other interests, and enable the conduct of a fair proceeding against the defendant (on the question of the good faith of the prosecution and other considerations at the remedy stage, see: Michal Tamir, Selective Enforcement, 351-365 (2008, hereinafter: Tamir, Selective Enforcement) and Tamir, Intention to Discriminate, at p. 642). In the Gottesdiener case, the Honorable Justice N. Hendel noted that when serious offenses are committed, the indictment should not be canceled and the perpetrators of the offense should not be acquitted, and in his words (at p. 49 of his judgment):
"However, since the acts of which the appellants were convicted ... Serious offenses such as fraud and forgery, which are in the sense of "living that bears itself", they detach themselves from the general framework story and distance themselves from the protection that may be provided for it. This is all the more true when we are dealing with offenses that were knowingly committed with the aim of raking economic profits into the private pockets of some of the appellants... In this context, it should be noted that the result whereby a person who committed offenses of forgery, fraud and falsehood, the presentation of a false representation of this magnitude will end without trial and without punishment, only because other parties, no matter how senior, have not been prosecuted for omissions of a different nature is a far-reaching result. I would say that such an outcome would harm the sense of justice and the public interest in a very serious way."