The defendant's argument is that the Oranim testimony against her, as well as the use of evidence they fabricated in their interrogations, or the evidence that the investigators came to as a result of their statements to the police, would violate her right to a fair trial in general, and her right to remain silent and not to incriminate herself in particular. The defendant argues, first, that those statements and testimonies collected from the organs that were granted immunity against her by virtue of the rule of jurisprudence (the Issacharov rule) should be disqualified, and that by virtue of the doctrine of protection from justice, the indictment against her should be dismissed, in light of the violation of the fairness of the proceeding. Below, I will discuss these rights, examine whether they belong to the corporation, and finally examine whether the defendant's arguments in these matters should be accepted.
4.2.a. The Essence of the Right to a Fair Trial
The right to a fair trial is one of the human rights, according to which before the state authorities violate one of the human rights, they must conduct a fair process during which it will be clarified whether there is justification for the said violation. In criminal law, the harm is the conviction of a person. The purpose of the rules of criminal procedure and the laws of evidence is to realize the essential penal laws, that is, to bring about the conviction of criminals, to reach the truth, but only while preserving the rights of the suspect and the accused (in this decision I will refer only to the fair process from the criminal aspect). The right to a fair trial constitutes an abstract criterion, detailed in the various legal systems for various matters (see: Assaf Porat, "Protection from Justice in the Constitutional Era," Kiryat Mishpat I, 381 (2001, hereinafter: Porat, Constitutional Protection); Constitutional Protection, at p. 385). The conceptual basis for it is twofold. First and foremost, infringement of rights by punishment as a result of a conviction should be done only in a proceeding that will preserve the rights of the accused and ensure that the conviction is based on reliable evidence and a high burden of proof. This was discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of the High Court of Justice 11339/05 State of Israel v. Beer Sheva District Court, IsrSC 66 (3) 93, 154 (2006, hereinafter: the Beer Sheva case, the words of Justice A. E. Levy, paragraph 24 of his judgment at p. 31):