4.2 The Right to a Due Process
4.2.a. The Essence of the Right to a Fair Trial
4.2.B The Constitutionality of the Right to a Fair Trial
4.2.1 The right to remain silent and the right (immunity) against self-incrimination
4.2.1.a. The Nature of Rights and the Conceptual Basis for Them
4.2.1.b. The right to remain silent and the right to refrain from self-incrimination in Israel
4.2.1.c. Applicability of the Right to Remain Silent and the Right from Self-Criminalization to Corporations
In the third and final part, I will discuss the possible remedies for the violation of these rights: the disqualification of the notices collected from the Oranim by virtue of the rule of judicial disqualification, or alternatively, the cancellation of the indictment on the grounds of protection from justice. In this framework, I will discuss the defense of justice argument raised by the defendant, according to which her prosecution and granting immunity to Aaronson, Weiss and Hirsch, who were senior officers of the defendant, constitutes selective enforcement. I will discuss the argument of protection from justice in general, and then the argument of selective enforcement in general and in the case before me in particular. The third chapter will be structured as follows:
- Remedies for Violation of Due Process, Invalidation of Evidence, and Defense of Justice
5.1 Invalidation of the statements and testimony of the organs against Siemens Israel by virtue of the rule of invalidation of evidence obtained by improper means
5.1.1. The Principles of the Yishkarov Rule
5.1.2. Development of the rule in case law after the Issacharov ruling
5.1.3 Whether the conditions for the application of the rule of invalidation of evidence are met in the case before
5.1.3.a.The Conflicting Interests: The Rights of the Accused vs. the Need to Fight Criminality
5.1.3.b. When should the question of the invalidity of the evidence be examined?
5.2. Protection from Justice
5.2.1 Discrimination in Prosecution - Selective Enforcement