The situation is different with regard to the location of Tawfik's cousin, in relation to whom it seems that there was room to act more vigorously to bring him for interrogation and not suffice with instructing Tawfiq to arrange for him to be brought in. At the same time, it should be remembered that Tawfiq's retraction of his version of the threats was made only at the stage of his testimony in court, and that many parts of the incident related to the washing incident are not controversial, some are corroborated by external evidence, and some are confirmed by the defendant himself.
Either way, the very existence of an investigative omission, and even if it is a serious omission, does not in itself lead to the acquittal of the accused. As is well known, the prosecution is not obligated to present the maximum or best evidence that can be obtained, but it is sufficient to present a sufficient evidentiary basis that substantiates the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, the effect of an investigative omission is not examined against the background of the totality of the evidence presented to the court. The weight of the omission is derived from the comparison of the evidentiary "nothing" (the evidence that was not collected) against the evidentiary "is" (the existing evidentiary foundation). The more solid and extensive the incriminating evidentiary basis, the less the weight of the investigative omission. In the circumstances of the case, we are not of the opinion that the failure to exhaust the investigation as detailed above, deprived the defendant's defense and constitutes an investigative failure that inherits the root of the matter, certainly not in the presence of the "what" in the case and certainly not one that justifies the acquittal of the defendant (and see a few of many: Criminal Appeal 5019/09 Dvir Haliwa v. State of Israel (August 20,2013); Criminal Appeal 8561/22 Elias Khoury v. State of Israel (August 20,2024); Criminal Appeal 9207/23 Anonymous v. State of Israel (May 2,2024)).