2.1.B The defendant's arguments regarding her right to a fair trial
Siemens Israel argues that the state's engagement with former managers in its ranks, in order for them to testify against it, is prima facie invalid, since it violates the right to a fair trial, which it has as a defendant in the criminal proceeding. According to her, if the statements of the state's witnesses against her are accepted, and since there are no organs other than them who can testify to a lie, both her right to remain silent and her right to immunity from self-incrimination will be violated. Therefore, according to her, she should not be prosecuted on the basis of the statements of her organs, as this would seriously infringe on her right to a fair trial. The defendant further argues in this regard that the statements of the organs against her are invalid evidence, which falls within the scope of the doctrine regarding the unlawful collection of evidence and should be disqualified for use in respect of it by virtue of the jurisprudential rule regarding the invalidation of evidence obtained unlawfully (hereinafter: the rule of disqualification), which was determined inCriminal Appeal 5121/98 Issacharov v. Chief Military Prosecutor, IsrSC 61 (1) 461 (2006, hereinafter: the Issacharov Rule).
The defendant claims that liability cannot be attributed to the company by virtue of the actions of organs that have been granted full immunity from prosecution. According to her, where a person is bound by a state witness agreement, he waives his right to avoid self-incrimination against immunity. Where the state' s witness is the organ whose actions and thoughts are attributed to the corporation, the corporation is deprived of its right to refrain from self-incrimination, while immunity is not granted to it. According to the defendant, her right to a fair trial is violated because the accuser assumes complete identification between the organs of Siemens Israel, Aaronson Weiss and Hirsch, in order to establish criminal liability for the defendant, but then splits between the organs and the corporation, in such a way that the organs will testify to their own actions and will be immune, while the defendant will bear full responsibility for those acts themselves without having the ability to defend herself.