the appellant who submitted all the documents. The appeal against this judgment was filed before us after leave to appeal was granted by the District Court.
- Before I turn to discuss the arguments of the parties, it is appropriate to focus the discussion. In my understanding, there are two questions that arise in this appeal: one, the question of the interpretation of the terms "In his possession or possession" Performers In section 43. The second is the question of the existence and nature of judicial review of the execution of orders issued by virtue of Article 43, in general, and with regard to the two orders issued in our case, in particular. These two questions are those that remain for discussion against the background of the discussions that have taken place so far between the parties on the subject of the orders that are the subject of our discussion.
The starting point for the discussion of these questions is the one that was determined by us in the first judgment [1]. There it was held that the appellant as a suspect does not have the right to remain silent as far as it relates to documents that he was ordered to produce by judicial order, but that he has immunity from self-incrimination. The appellant declared in the hearings that took place before both the Tel Aviv-Jaffa Magistrate's Court and the Petah Tikva Magistrate's Court, that he does not claim immunity from self-incrimination with respect to the documents that he was ordered to produce in the orders. From this the conclusion arises, and this will be the assumption in this judgment, that the documents requested in the first and second orders do not incriminate the appellant.
Another fact that must be emphasized at the outset also relates to the two orders in dispute – the first order and the second order. Both in the previous hearing and in the hearing before us there was no dispute as to the legality, including the reasonableness, of the orders. The significance of this is that the conditions of section 43 for the issuance of each of the orders were met.
- Article 43 establishes two cumulative conditions that the prosecution must convince of the existence of the-Shabbat Dish-The law will exercise the consideration of-will issue an order as requested: one, the necessity of the object for the purposes of investigation or trial. The second is the existence of an assumption that the object is in the possession or possession of the person intended to receive the order. These are two necessary conditions, but the fulfillment of these two conditions does not necessarily lead to the issuance of an order, as requested by the-The prosecution. Issuing orders by virtue of Article 43 Subject to consideration-The Opinion of a House-The Trial. Home-The Trial "Permitted" to issue the order, but is not obligated. Already in the ruling-The First Law [1] We noted that the issuance of orders by virtue of Article 43 It should not be done as a matter of routine. This was also the position of the prosecution before us during the previous hearing, and it repeated it in the hearing before us. This is what we said on this matter in the judgment-The First Law [1]: