Indeed, the accuser explained that the outputs of the conversations (P/587, P/588) were not fully transferred to the defense. Instead, lines relating to conversations with those not involved in the charges were "blackened" in order to preserve the privacy of the subscriber who is the subject of the output and of the uninvolved callers (in this context, the accuser referred to paragraph 10 of the State Attorney's Directive No. 7.6 – Receipt of Communications Data). In this way, there was no flaw and no basis was laid for the fact that this was information that in any way related to the indictment or that it should have been made available to the defense for review. Moreover, in view of the arguments he raised on the matter, Shohat's counsel was able to receive the full open files as they were received from Cellcom, in order to compare them with the "blacked" file that was given to the defense (p. 4142, s. 6 - p. 4143, s. 25, p. 4151, s. 20-22). Subsequently, counsel for Shochat announced that the data on the visible outputs was no different from the "blackened" outputs that were transferred to the defense (see the notice of April 7, 2022, in any case there was no claim of a discrepancy in any case). Once the conditions of admissibility with respect to the source emissions that were transferred to the accuser have been proven, and since the "blackened" emissions that were submitted correspond to the source outputs, it is clear that the latter should be accepted as evidence. The attempt to build on meaningless formal changes (adding an underline in the title of one or another file, N/319 vs. N/320) that do not change the essence (p. 4152, paras. 12-17).
During Elbaz's testimony, various claims were raised regarding the transcripts of the conversations and the document he signed. In doing so, Shohat sought to point out alleged discrepancies in the emissions of the calls. However, Elbaz gave clear, satisfactory and satisfactory answers to everything that was asked (thus, for example, he explained that a conversation that lasts more than 420 seconds will be expressed in a file of several consecutive lines, and in any case this is not a mistake in registration, pp. 4162-4163; thus he explained that where during a call a text message is received or another call enters that the subscriber switches to, an additional action will be recorded in a manner that coincides with the time of the previous call). p. 4163, paras. 2-17; Thus, he explained the negligible differences in the duration of the call between two different call outputs – the output of the subscriber initiating the call and the output of the subscriber receiving it – by minor differences between the system switches, p. 4164, paras. 22-23; Thus, he explained that the information that was produced and provided to the accuser included the details of the incoming and outgoing calls to the subscribers specified for the period between 6 September 2011 and 15 September 2011, as requested in the order (P/582), in a manner consistent with the registration in paragraph 2 of the certificate (where the first point there relates to both the locations and the calls); Because the files that were produced referred to September 15.11, as requested, even if there was a clerical error in the certificate and it was recorded on September 15.13, pp. 4154-4157, and even if the accuser noted otherwise at the top of the "blackened" outputs). All of the arguments therefore received a proper and satisfactory response, and they do not detract from the conclusion that the record that was submitted – the call outputs – reliably testifies to its content, i.e., the existence of conversations between the subscribers who registered, on the dates specified in the outputs and in accordance with the data presented.