legal background, it is also clear, that in developing andimplementing the electronic record systems of the courts, thefirst step, e.g., defining the specifications of the electronicrecord systems, was particularly sensitive. Either theauthorities, duties and responsibilities of the Chief Clerk and/or Registrar, and the respective procedures were to beunequivocally and unambiguously defined, or else an invalidelectronic records system would be developed andimplemented.III.
The underlying study was narrowly focused on analysisof integrity of the electronic record systems in nationalcourts (Supreme Court, district courts, detainees’ courts).The study was not based on legal analysis of the records, orchallenges to the rationale of the adjudication. Instead,irregularities in date, signature, certification, and registrationprocedures were examined through data mining methods,executed on the online public records of the courts.In the current report, emphasis is given to several casehistories, and related certification, authentication proceduresof the courts.IV.
Supreme Court of the State of Israel – decisions are publshed on an uncertified servers.
A fatal defect in the security and validity of the SupremeCourt's records, is the failure to have the identity of theserver certified. (Fig 1)
Figure 1. Identify of the servers of the Supreme Court is not verified. Theelectronic records of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel are publishedonline on a server, whose identity is not verified. The website is identifiedas belonging to the "Judicial Authority" – an undefined legal entity.According to the 2010 State Ombudsman’s Report (60b), the servers arenow housed on corporate grounds, out of compliance with the
Regulationsof the Courts – Office of the Clerk
(2004). The Administration of Courtsrefuses to disclose, who holds the ultimate administrative authority over theservers. After March 2002, no mention appears in the records of the officeor any Clerk of the Court.
Supreme Court of the State of Israel - inexpliciblechanges in certification procedures in 2001-2003
Initially, integrity of the basic components of theSupreme Court's information systems were examined:indices of all cases, calendars, dockets (lists of records in agiven file), indices of decisions, and consistency of dataamong these components (e.g., the date a record was filed, aslisted in the docket, in contrast to the date, as indicated in thebody of the record itself) [Online Appendix 2].A cursory survey was then conducted of the pattern judges’ signatures and clerk’s certification in records of theSupreme Court over the past two decades. Consequently, thesignificance of events around 2001-2003 was identified, anda more detailed survey was conducted of records of thatperiod, including changes in distribution of specific wordcombinations, related to certification, over time (e.g., Chief Clerk, Registrar, True Copy, individual names "ShmaryahuCohen", "Sarah Lifschitz", "Boaz Okon", etc). Records thatwere identified as outliers in such distributions wereindividually examined.
Figure 2. Changes in the Supreme Court Clerk’s certifications of electronic decisions: (a) Until early 2002, all electronic decisions of theSupreme Court carried certification by the late Chief Clerk ShmaryahuCohen. (b) Since 2003, none of the electronic decision records carries anycertification, or any reference to the Office of the Clerk. Instead they carrya disclaimer “subject to editing and phrasing changes”, and reference to an“Information Center”, which has no foundation in the law. TheAdministration of Courts refuses to disclose the legal foundation for suchprofound change in the records of the Supreme Court in 2001-2003.
Based on the findings from such data mining efforts,requests were filed on the Ministry of Justice and theAdministration of Courts, pursuant to the
Freedom of Information Act
, for records that would provide the legalfoundation for such changes, and the appointment records of chief clerks of the courts, the Registrar of CertifyingAuthorities, secondary legislation that might have authorizedthe changes, etc.Additionally, outside sources were reviewed forinformation regarding the history of the development andimplementation of the electronic records systems of thecourts: media reports, and in particular the 2010
Figure 3. The Decision, in
Judith Franco Sidi et al v Authority pursuant to the Persons Disabled by Nazi Persecutions Act
(1582/02) in the SupremeCourt in part says:Issued this date, February 14, 2007Boaz OkonRegistrar_________This version is subject to editing and phrasing changes.Shmaryahu Cohen – Chief Clerk