Academic literature on the topic 'Right of non-self-incrimination / nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare'

An unlimited right of non-self-incrimination of witnesses before international criminal tribunals exists only during the pre-trial investigation (Article 55 ICC Statute); during trial the right is not unlimited, as the witness can be compelled to answer any question, either on the basis of an ex ante assurance of non-use of the evidence against him/her coupled with an assurance of confidentiality (ICC Rule 74(3)(c)) or on the basis of a guarantee of non-use without an explicit assurance to that effect (ICTY/ICTR Rules 90(F)). It is doubtful whether these rules are compatible with the principle nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare since this principle protects not only the accused but also the witness from a criminal prosecution which is based on her own statements.

The work is devoted to the non-statutory justification of action in the scope of the right to defence, whose purpose was the exclusion of criminal responsibility for giving false testimony by a witness – the actual perpetrator – in his or her case. It was emphasised that the defence which heretofore resulted from Art. 182 and 183 kk was insufficient for the witness. One discussed inter alia the legal basis of the justification, its constituent elements, one indicated the controversies which were caused by the concept of justification, and which to a great extent were associated with the violation, by the Supreme Court, of the constitutional principle of the tripartite division of powers and with the substantive and temporal limits of the right to defence which result both from the norms of international and domestic law. One indicated the position of the representatives of the doctrine as to the concept of justification. Scholarship on the subject, even though it did not take a uniform stand in reference to the problem in question, basically discerned the necessity of the improvement of the situation of the witness – the actual perpetrator, who, testifying in his or her own case, would run the risk of self-incrimination. The considerations of the doctrine resulted in numerous alternative propositions de lege ferenda. In the work, one suggests to seek such a solution in the substantive approach to the nemo se ipsum accusare tenetur rule. Then it was emphasised that the problem of justification once again became the subject of discussion owing to the amendment issued on 11 March 2016 about the modification of the act of law – The Code of Criminal Procedure and certain other acts of law Art. 233 §1a kk. At that time one penalised the behaviour of a witness, who in fear of criminal liability to be faced by the witness or his relatives gives false testimony or conceals the truth. For the sake of recapitulation, one indicated that the amendment which was described above rendered the justification in question invalid, and the perpetrator who is heard in a court of law as a witness continues de lege lata to be entitled to use the right to refuse to answer the question from Art. 183 §1 kpk. One emphasised that the doctrine recurrently discerned the shortcomings of defence which result from Art. 183 §1 kpk. Above all the institution from Art. 183 §1 kpk was not intended for a witness – the actual perpetrator. Therefore, in the article, in order to realise the warranty nature of the entitlement in question one suggests that this admonishment should be rendered obligatory, so that every witness would be aware that the right exists and that he or she may exercise it.

Teisė nekaltinti savęs, apimanti draudimą versti duoti parodymus prieš save, savo šeimos narius ar artimus giminaičius - tai kiekvieno asmens konstitucinė garantija, užtikrinanti žmogaus ir valstybės santykių suderinamumą šiandieninėje konstitucinėje visuomenėje sprendžiant teisingumo klausimus. Asmuo turi teisę apginti save ir savo artimuosius nuo bet kokio pobūdžio ar sunkumo kaltinimo. Nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare principas kildinamas iš žmogaus orumo principo ir teisės į laisvą asmens vystymąsi, todėl šis principas turi būti aiškinamas neatsiejamai nuo kitų konstitucinių principų ar nuostatų, susijusių su teisingumo, draudimo piktnaudžiauti valdžia samprata, nukentėjusiųjų nuo nusikalstamų veikų bei kitų proceso subjektų interesų apsauga. Magistro baigiamajame darbe pateikiama teisės nekaltinti savęs analizė kitų konstitucinių principų kontekste. Skirtingose šalyse draudimo versti duoti parodymus prieš save principo, taikomo siekiant apsaugoti įtariamųjų ir liudytojų procesinius interesus, veikimo mechanizmas nėra vienodas. Priklausomai nuo baudžiamųjų procesinių santykių konstrukcijos bei nuo šiuose santykiuose vyraujančio teisinio reguliavimo metodo ir teisinio proceso principų, šios garantijos pobūdis ir apimtis skirtingose baudžiamojo proceso teisės doktrinose vertinami nevienodai. Tačiau, tiek bendrosios, tiek kontinentinės teisės sistemose draudimas versti duoti parodymus prieš save ar savo artimą vertinamas kaip valstybės nustatytas imunitetas, apsaugantis nuo... [toliau žr. visą tekstą]
The right of non-self-incrimination, that includes prohibition to compel to give evidence against oneself, family members or close relatives - is every person's constitutional guarantee to ensure human and public relations compatibility in today's constitutional society, dealing with justice issues. A person has the right to defend himself and his relatives from any type or severity of accusation. Nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare principle derived from the principle of human dignity and the right to the free development of the individual. Bearing this in mind, this principle must be interpreted through other constitutional principles or provisions relating justice, concept of prohibition of power abuse, interests protection of victims and other entities of process. Master's thesis provides the analysis of the right of non-self-incrimination in the context of other constitutional principles. In different countries the mechanism of functioning of the principle of the prohibition to compel to give evidence against oneself, applicable in order to protect suspects and witnesses interests in proceedings, is not the same. Depending on the criminal procedural relations structures and prevailing legal regulation method in these relations, the legal process principles, the nature and scope of this guarantee is treated differently in various criminal law doctrines. However, in both common and civil law systems the prohibition to compel to give evidence against oneself and family members... [to full text]

Nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare principle Abstract The thesis deals with the nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare principle, which represents one of the fundamental procedural rights in criminal proceedings. The European Court of Human Rights considers it an inseparable part of the right to a just trial. Especially considering the problems arising in connection to interpretation and application of he said principle, the thesis tries to _ the most problematic areas of the principle's application and the different opinions as to what it entails. The first chapter contains the history of the principle's application, both on the European continent in civil law and in common law in both the United Kingdom and the United States. The second chapter summarizes the evolution of rulings of the European Court for Human Rights. Attention is paid to the relation between the nemo tenetur principle and the right to a fair trial contained in the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and also to the relation o other right contained in the same treaty, especially focusing on freedom from torture in order to obtain an evidence of a criminal act. The third chapter summarizes the Czech legislation on the topic, both on Constitutional level - especially focusing on those articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and...

This dissertation deals with nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare principle and its importance to the legal person when accused. The first point refers to nemo tenetur principle and its corollaries. In a second point, we are going to investigate the contours of its application to the legal person. The application of the right to silence to legal person involves several questions that hasn't a procedurally answers, but which raise complexities regarding the extent of this right within the legal person. The same happens to the right against self-incrimination, which must be combined with the self-incrimination of the legal person itself and with the self-incrimination of the other organ owners and members of the legal person. Finally, this dissertation also deals with the exceptions at nemo tenetur principle, embodied in the duties of collaboration, especially the extra-procedural ones and those who appears outside the procedural collaboration that is required to the defendant in criminal proceedings. It is therefore necessary to examine the exercise of the right to silence and the right to self-incrimination by the concerned, which is the subject of collaborative duties in the supervision of economic activities. The purpose of this dissertation is to demarcate the complexities associated with the exercise of procedural prorogations by the legal person, taking into account its organic and organizational structure. We also aim to investigate the maintenance of the duties of collaboration when there is a suspicion against the concerned, as well as the contours of the elements brought by the concerned, which can be used for the duties of collaboration in a subsequent sanctioning process, especially a criminal one.
A presente dissertação versa sobre o princípio nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare e a sua aplicação ao ente coletivo quando este esteja sob a veste de arguido. O primeiro enfoque refere-se ao princípio nemo tenetur e aos seus corolários. Num segundo plano, averiguamos dos contornos da sua aplicação ao ente coletivo. A aplicação do direito ao silêncio ao ente coletivo implica várias respostas que não estão consagradas a nível processual mas que suscitam complexidades relativamente à amplitude deste direito no seio do ente coletivo. O mesmo quanto ao direito contra a auto-incriminação, que deve ser conjugado com a auto-incriminação do próprio ente coletivo e com a auto-incriminação dos demais titulares de órgãos e membros do ente coletivo. Por fim, a presente dissertação versa ainda sobre as exceções ao princípio nemo tenetur, consubstanciadas nos deveres de colaboração, principalmente, os extraprocessuais. Aqueles que surgem numa esfera exterior à colaboração processual que é exigida ao arguido de um processo penal. Por isso, importa analisar o exercício do direito ao silêncio e do direito contra a auto-incriminação pelo visado, sujeito a deveres de colaboração no âmbito da supervisão das atividades económicas. Como objetivo a alcançar, pretendemos deslindar as complexidades associadas ao exercício de prorrogativas processuais pelo ente coletivo, tendo em conta a sua orgânica e a sua estrutura organizativa. Visamos ainda averiguar da manutenção dos deveres de colaboração quando haja uma suspeita contra o visado, bem como dos contornos com que podem ser utilizados os elementos trazidos pelos visados pelos deveres de colaboração num subsequente processo sancionatório, principalmente, se de cariz criminal.

Dissertação de Mestrado em Ciências Jurídico-Forenses apresentada à Faculdade de Direito
O presente estudo tem como objetivo apresentar um contributo para a resolução dos casos em que, no âmbito de determinado processo-crime no qual sejam investigados crimes de usurpação de identidade ou de falsificação de documento e seja elemento essencial dos mesmos e facto objeto de imputação a identidade do arguido, este se depara ab initio com o dever de identificação, entrando em conflito com o direito constitucional à não autoincriminação e, mais concretamente, com o direito ao silêncio. Cumpre assim analisar se, nestes casos, poderá o arguido excecionalmente remeter-se ao silêncio, não revelando o seu nome, filiação, freguesia e concelho de naturalidade, data de nascimento, estado civil, profissão, residência e local de trabalho, cumprindo ao tribunal a aquisição destes conhecimentos através de outras fontes ou proceder ao julgamento sem eles ou se, ao invés, os interesses de ordem coletiva, na perseguição da justiça e na busca da verdade material se sobrepõem sempre e independentemente da violação do direito à não autoincriminação do arguido, obrigando-o a cumprir escrupulosamente com o dever de identificação prescrito na lei, ainda que tal comine na imediata apreensão para o processo da prática do crime por parte do visado.Esta discussão a que nos propomos, terá como finalidade a apreciação da constitucionalidade da imposição do dever de identificação ao arguido naqueles tipos de crime em concreto. Para tanto, serão relevadas as soluções da legislação nacional e os valores basilares do nosso ordenamento jurídico de índole constitucional, e analisadas as soluções apontadas pela jurisprudência e pela doutrina sobre esta temática.
The purpose of this study is to purchase a contribution to the resolution of cases in which, within the scope of a criminal process in which are investigated crimes of identity theft or document forgery and the defendant’s identity is an essential element of them, he is forced with the duty of identification, generating a conflict with the constitutional right against self-incrimination and, mora specifically, with the legal right to silence. It is therefore necessary to analyse whether, in these cases, the defendant may exceptionally remain in silence, without revealing his name, affiliation, place of birth, marital status, profession, residence and place of work, complying with the court, falling to the court the acquisition of this knowledge through other sources or proceed to trial without them or, instead, the interests of collective order, in the pursuit of justice and the pursuit of material truth always overlap and regardless of the violation of the right against self-incrimination of the defendant, forcing him with this duty of identification prescribed by the law, even though this implicates the immediate perception, on the process, that the crime was committed by the defendant.The discussion that we propose, aims the analysis of the constitutionality of the imposition of the duty to identify the accused in those specific types of crimes. The solutions of the national legislation and the basic values of our constitutional legal order will be analysed together with the solutions identified by the jurisprudence and by the doctrine on this subject.