In light of the above, it is necessary to consider whether the defendant should be granted the right to a fair trial, including the right to remain silent and the right to prevent self-incrimination. The defendant claims that by virtue of the fact that immunity was granted to organs whose behavior and thoughts Siemens Israel is prosecuted, Siemens Israel is deprived of its right to a fair trial. In this context, Siemens Israel refers to the denial of two main defenses. First, she is denied the right to remain silent, since the organs on her behalf confessed during the interrogation and are on the list of prosecution witnesses. Second, she is deprived of the right to immunity from self-incrimination, since once the organs confess to their actions, their behavior and thoughts can be attributed to society, and it will no longer be able to maintain the immunity from self-incrimination.
Much has been written about both the right to remain silent and the right to self-incrimination, and these are complex questions. This complexity intensified with the enactment of the Basic Laws and the perception that the Basic Laws influenced criminal law in general and the rights of defendants in particular. This complexity must be examined against the background of the question of whether there is room to grant these rights to the corporation, when the organ that committed the offense attributed to the corporation was dismissed for one reason or another. Isn't this a matter of rights, which, in the words of President E. Barak, "the existence of a personality of flesh and blood is essential"?
Today, the main test is the adjustment of the specific rights of the corporation (see Darrell A.H. Miller, "Guns, Inc.: Citizen United, McDonald, and the future of Corporate Constitutional Rights", 86 N.Y.U L. Rev. 887, 918 (2011) following the Circuit Transfer Circuit Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (hereinafter: the Citizens United case), in which it was held that a corporation has a constitutional right, by virtue of freedom of expression, to contribute to a partisan-political campaign. See also the role of the court in examining the question of the suitability of rights to corporations: Joe C. Campbell, "Corporate Law, the Courts and Corporate Personality", Legal Studies Research Paper No. 15/61, Sydney Law School (2015) available at: at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2629968, hereinafter: Campbell, Corporate Law). Therefore, later on, I will address the applicability of the protections in criminal proceedings to corporations, with reference to the type, nature and nature of the corporation.