Interrogations And The Right To Remain Silent - A Comparative Approach

Interrogations are a very specific component of any criminal investigation. The answers gained through interrogative process provides information that are considered as direct evidences. In contemporary criminal procedure, the court is not absolved from gaining other evidences, even in cases when the defendant confesses his/her guiltiness. This is a mechanism for excluding the inquisitorial approach for extracting compulsory confessions. The modern procedure uses a variety of mechanisms to guarantee that the defendant will not be compelled to confess guilt.

Those mechanisms are part of most important international conventions as International Convention for Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, the Statutes of International Tribunals (i.e. International Tribunal for ex-Yugoslavia, International Tribunal for Rwanda) and part of different constitutional and legal acts of modern states.

A very interesting “highlight” remains the right to silence which guarantees that the defendant might remain silent and it will not be interpreted against him. The defendant, even in cases with direct evidences, can remain silent and cannot be forced to answer given questions.

Another “highlight” is that one that appears from the privilege against self-incrimination that allows the defendant to not answer a question, if by answering, he/she may confess guilt or incriminate him/herself. How deep is this privilege? Are there, maybe questions, that he/she are obliged to answer (i.e. disclosure of identity?)

The article will focus in interrogations and the right to silence by most important international acts and domestic acts of different countries (USA, France, Germany, Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia) and upcoming specifics in the relation interrogations vs. remaining silent.