HaMoked appealed to the President of the Supreme Court after learning that Court hearings regarding two cases were not transcribed as required: transcripts of hearings form a constitutional obligation which must not be infringed

The Court’s secretariat has informed that in two cases HaMoked has brought before the Supreme Court, transcripts were not produced as required by law. One of the cases was transferred for a hearing before a new panel, which will now have to consider and perhaps even decide the petition without any documentation of the parties' arguments and the Justices’ comments from the first hearing.

In light of the importance of the matter, on 8 July 2008 HaMoked appealed to the President of the Supreme Court, Justice Beinisch, demanding to know why a transcript was not produced in the said cases, and to ensure this would not repeat itself.

In its letter, HaMoked stresses that the obligation to transcribe a hearing is enshrined both in court rulings and in the Courts Law (Consolidated Version) 5744-1984, which establishes that a hearing must be transcribed and that the transcript must reflect everything which occurs or is said during the hearing. The Law also explicitly refers to the Supreme Court.

Transcription of court hearings is extremely important – the transcript has evidentiary value according to the Law of Evidence, and is vitally important to upholding transparency and the principle of open court; it is of use to the parties and to the Court itself, which decides a case based on the contents of the transcripts as well as the court documents.

To view the letter dated 8 July 2009 (Hebrew)

To view the explanatory notes of the amendment to the Courts Law regarding transcripts of hearings dated 11 March 2008 (Hebrew)