It follows from this that as long as it has not become clear that the failure to prosecute some of those involved in a particular affair stemmed from arbitrariness or improper considerations, such partial enforcement, even though it violates the principle of equality, does not justify intrusive judicial review, whether by way of an order to prosecute the rest of those involved or by way of comparing the situation of those involved who were prosecuted with that of those who were not prosecuted.
Exercising the prosecution's discretion in a reasonable manner and while maintaining equality between defendants means that its decision regarding the filing of an indictment will be directed to the purpose of the law and will be based solely on relevant considerations. The prosecution may not file a criminal indictment on the basis of extraneous considerations or for the purpose of achieving an improper goal (see: Yisgav Nakdimon, Protection from Justice 329).
In another criminal hearing 5189/05 Ayalon - Insurance Company in Tax Appeal v. State of Israel (unpublished, [published in Nevo], given on April 20, 2006), the Supreme Court addressed the argument that the prosecution may, in a multi-participant offense, suffice with prosecuting some of the perpetrators of the offense, stating:
"... The rulings to which the petitioners refer – in particular the Bar-Lev ruling and the Ganor ruling – do not state that the prosecution must prosecute all the participants in a multi-participant offense and that the prosecution has no discretion in this matter. All that is said in them is that, as a rule, the prosecution must refrain from partial enforcement in order not to violate the principle of equality. However, where there are relevant considerations for distinguishing between the participants, in any case this is not a prohibited distinction." (See also Criminal Appeal 3215/07 Anonymous v. State of Israel, unpublished, [published in Nevo], given on August 4, 2008, and Criminal Appeal 4596/05 Rosenstein v. State of Israel, unpublished, [published in Nevo], given on November 30, 2005, where the court reiterated that this is a claim that will be accepted only in rare cases and that it should be applied sparingly.)