Another argument, in the context of protection from justice, is that the defendant's constitutional right to conduct a fair trial has been violated. According to the proper order, there is no room to conduct a prosecution case in the case of defendant 1 in the framework of the defense affair of other defendants. In the present case, after the testimony of defendant 1 was completed and his defense case was completed, evidence was presented on behalf of the other defendants that related to the case of defendant 1, without him having any ability to defend himself, while the prosecution seeks to rely on this evidence, in its request to substantiate the defendant's conviction. The violation of this defendant's right to a fair trial is particularly extreme, since during his cross-examinations, both by the prosecution and by the other defendants, he was not presented with the full versions that were subsequently given and he was not presented with arguments, to which he was asked to respond. When defendant 1 sought to complete his testimony, after presenting the evidence and the new versions, the court allowed him to refer to only one piece of evidence – a recording of conversations he had with defendant 3.
The defense argues that: "This state of affairs contradicts the foundations of criminal law and the adversarial process and makes cynical and distorted use of the lacuna in the criminal procedure, in a manner that fatally violates the right of defendant 1 to a fair trial." Since this is a material contradiction to the principles of justice and legal fairness, the defendant should be acquitted on this ground as well, and alternatively, the possibility of relying on this evidence and versions against defendant 1 should be disqualified.
A final argument regarding the protection of justice is that in order to justify the filing of the indictment in the District Court, the indictment was drafted in the most detailed manner, in the event of an artificial multiplicity of indictments, such as by way of artificially splitting the offenses concerning fraudulent receipt.