Following the first judgment [1], the state applied to the Tel Aviv-Jaffa Magistrate's Court and asked to instruct the appellant to hand over the documents detailed in the first order. In addition, the respondent requested that a date be set for a hearing on the question of the existence of confidentiality against self-incrimination, in accordance with what was stated in our judgment.
On December 16, 2003, the appellant handed over to the police some of the documents that he was ordered to hand over in the first order. In a hearing before the Tel Aviv-Jaffa Magistrate's Court, the appellant announced, through his counsel, that he had no additional documents that he was required to provide in the order, and that there were no documents that he wished to refrain from providing because of the confidentiality from self-incrimination. The court ruled that the appellant must comply with the order and hand over all the documents mentioned therein, whether they are in his physical possession or whether he has the power to obtain them.
- Parallel to the sequence described in the preceding paragraph, the appellant was also interrogated by the National Unit for Investigations between-nationalism in the affair known as the Greek Island Affair. In the framework of this investigation as well, in light of the special circumstances related to the appellant, a house-The Petah Tikva Magistrate's Court on July 23, 2003, at the request of the Respondent, issued an order instructing the appellant to hand over the documents and objects specified therein (hereinafter – the Second Order). This order also referred to objects in the possession of anyone on behalf of the appellant, including any corporation to which the appellant has a legal connection. With regard to the second order, the appellant also claimed that he had the right to remain silent, and that he was not obligated to hand over the documents. In light of what was stated in the judgment-The First Law [1] Regarding the first order, the respondent contacted the house-The Magistrate's Court in Petah Tikva in a request to instruct the appellant to hand over the documents on-pursuant to the second order and to hold a hearing on the question of self-incrimination. In these proceedings, the appellant announced that on December 16, 2003, he had given the police the documents as required, and that he did not claim the existence of confidentiality against self-incrimination with respect to them.
On December 24, 2003, a hearing was held in the Magistrate's Court in Petah Tikva on the State's request. The State argued that the second order was not fully complied with, and that all the documents had not been provided as required. During the hearing, counsel for the appellant, on behalf of the appellant, stated that he was not in possession of additional documents, including tapes. In light of this statement, the court ruled that in the circumstances that arose, there was no reason to hold a hearing on the respondent's application.
- The appellant filed an appeal against the decision of the-The Magistrate's Court in the matter of the first order, in which he requested that it be determined that he was not obligated to assist the police in locating documents that were not in his possession. The Respondent filed an appeal against Beit's decision-The Petah Tikva Magistrate's Court in the matter of the second order and argued that in accordance with the order, the appellant must also hand over documents that are not in his immediate possession. The state further argued that the court is entitled to the procedure of fulfilling the order-The law, the order issues, to conduct judicial review.
The Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court heard these two appeals together. The respondent's appeal regarding the second order was granted. The appellant's appeal regarding the first order was rejected. It was held that the words "in his possession or possession" in section 43 should be interpreted broadly, and that the term "possession" should be given the broad meaning given to it in section 3424 ofthe Penal Law, 5737-1977, in accordance with the provisions of section 3423 of the Penal Law. It was further held that an equal sentence should be learned from the course of action set out in the first judgment [1] with regard to judicial review of the claim of immunity from self-incrimination. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances, the Petah Tikva Magistrate's Court should have held a hearing in which the reasons and reasons why the appellant would not be able to provide one document or another, and there was no room to suffice with the statement of