Regarding the first issue, Adv. Dagan argued that Defendant 5 was interrogated four times, prior to the filing of the indictment against him, and not a single claim from the prosecution was presented to him during the interrogation. At the end of the investigation, he was not named as a suspect in committing any offense, and he was released without any bail or restrictions. Later, the State Attorney's Office asked for the investigation to be completed. Defendant 5 was interrogated on 28 November 2002 without warning, without being told that he was suspected of committing any offense, contrary to the conduct of the other defendants. The fact that an indictment was filed against him, after this sequence of events, is scandalous behavior on the part of the prosecution and is inconsistent with its duty to try to investigate the truth. According to the State Attorney's Office's guidelines, a prosecutor must examine all the evidence, including the defendant's version, before deciding whether to file an indictment. In the present case, the defendant's version was not examined before the indictment was filed, because he was not questioned about the allegations leveled against him in the indictment. This violated his right to a fair trial, and he was not given a proper opportunity to argue his arguments against the filing of the indictment. In its conduct in the case, the State Attorney's Office consciously denied defendant 5 his right to argue against his inclusion in the indictment, because it was not interested in hearing or examining the defendant's version in response to what was alleged against him in the indictment.
As stated above, the prosecution also objected to defendant 5's request to give his version as part of the completion of the investigation, after the indictment was filed. When the prosecution failed to present its arguments to the defendant, prior to the filing of the indictment, it should have tried to remedy the defect by way of further investigation in order to obtain the defendant's version in an orderly and detailed manner. Since the prosecution refused this request, it is also justified to apply the principle of protection from justice, and to cancel the charges against the defendant.