Of the documents mentioned in the orders, it was not examined by him in depth. Hence it was feared that the appellant would not be able to produce some of the documents.
It would have been appropriate, of course, that the matter should be examined by the appellant upon receipt of the orders, and that any argument regarding the inability to produce any document should be brought to the attention of the court within the framework of all the arguments and at the first opportunity. When there is an objection to the fulfilment of an order of the court as it is written, the objector must raise all of his arguments and reasons for his objection at the first opportunity. It is inconceivable that after the conclusion of the hearing of the objection, reasons will be raised, the memory of which did not come up until the hearing of the Supreme Court, the third instance hearing the matter. An argument regarding the appellant's lack of control over the documents was not raised in the District Court, and in any case there is no reference to it on his part. We will further emphasize that this is the second incarnation of the affair, which has passed the three levels of the court system, and only at the end of the arguments in the Supreme Court, in response to the State's arguments, was the said argument raised. There is no doubt that it was raised late, however, and notwithstanding all that we have said above, we wish to leave an opening for the appellant to turn again to the court in those cases in which it will become clear that despite all the appellant's efforts, he has been unable to obtain and produce a document from the documents included in the orders. It is appropriate to leave this opening to the appellant only because of the fear that we will issue an order that cannot be executed, with all the harsh consequences that may accompany it. In the circumstances of our case, the burden will be on the appellant to convince the court of this. However, it will be clear that at this stage we are referring only to documents in which the appellant is unable to take possession of them and to hand them over even if he does everything possible to do so. This will find expression in the operative version of the judgment (in paragraph 21 below).