(1) To obligate him to provide bail, and if he has not given a guarantee, to order his arrest; The Minister of Justice will determine in the regulations, with the approval of the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee of the Knesset, provisions that will apply to the obligation to pay bail, its conditions and its consequences;
(2) To issue any order he deems appropriate in order to ensure that he appears or produce the document, including the deposit of a passport and a prohibition on leaving the country."
The question arises as to whether this power of the court to impose obedience and to impose a penalty for non-compliance also extends to refraining from submitting documents, as required by an order by virtue of section 43, or whether the section applies only in situations in which a person has been summoned to appear before the court – to testify and produce documents before it. There is no need for us to decide on the matter. However, and since the question was raised and the parties addressed it, I will note that I am inclined to the opinion that section 73 should also be interpreted as applying to situations in which a person refrained from delivering documents that he was ordered to deliver by order by virtue of section 43.
Admittedly, the legislative environment of the section – section 6 of chapter 2 of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version] – concerns the publicity of the hearing and the conduct of hearings before the court, and the prohibition of harming them. It also appears that the routine cases in which the powers under section 73 will be used are cases of a witness refraining from attending a hearing in a proceeding before the court, however, the purpose of the section – ensuring the arrival of witnesses and the fulfillment of orders – points in the direction of its application even in circumstances in which an order was issued by virtue of section 43. It would seem that there is no logic in distinguishing, with regard to the existence of a sanction, between a violation of an order issued by virtue of section 43 and the failure of witnesses to attend the hearing to which they were summoned and to submit documents as required. This interpretation is also supported by the language of section 73(a), which states that the court's jurisdiction extends to "a person who has been summoned to testify and has not appeared, or who has been ordered to produce a document and has not produced it... ". In light of the above, I am inclined to determine that section 73 also applies in situations in which a person violates an order issued by virtue of section 43, so that the court that issued the order has the authority to apply the sanctions specified in section 73 in these situations as well.
- We discussed the subject of home supervision above-The trial of the execution of orders issued on-His hands according to Article 43. We clarified that the appellant's position on-Fairy after the issuance of the order against a house-The sentence is to suffice with the appellant's answer, whatever it may be, and that any supervision of the execution of the order or sanctions for failure to-Filling it is not given to the house-The law issuing the order – this position is not acceptable to us. The practical significance of the appellant's position is, to a large extent, an emptiness of the content of the provisions Article 43. On the other hand, we sought to outline in general terms, without exhausting it, the method of implementing supervision by the home-The trial of the execution of the orders against the background of the aforesaid In section 43 and its purpose. To date, the need to draw these lines has not arisen, since no difficulties or questions have arisen regarding the fulfillment of orders in accordance with Article 43. When such questions arose in the parasha before us, we said what we said.