چکیده:
The right to silence is not a single and separate right from other rights, but rather a combination of them. When the right to silence is mentioned, the presumption of innocence, the prosecutor's duty to prove the constituent elements of the crime, and the prohibition of torturing the accused to obtain confessions and information are brought to mind. These rights can be called the guarantors of the accused's right to silence, which is based on the principle of freedom of expression and the necessity of respecting the dignity and honor of the accused. The importance of the presumption of innocence for the right to silence is that the presumption of innocence places the burden of proving the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the prosecutor. The accused cannot be compelled to assist the prosecutor in proving the charges against them. Another aspect of the discussion regarding the silence of the accused is the possibility or impossibility of adverse inferences (against them) and the obligation of the accused to respond to questions. In fact, interpreting silence to the detriment of the accused and ultimately treating silence as an indication of guilt causes the burden of proof to be reversed and placed upon the accused. This article, while examining the concept of the right to silence and its status in Iranian law and some other countries, aims to answer questions related to this right.
خلاصه ماشینی:
The Right to Silence in France Article 111 L of the French Code of Criminal Procedure requires the investigating judge, when interrogating the accused, to inform them that they have the right to remain silent and can state their claims or answer the questions.
When the right to silence is mentioned, the presumption of innocence, the prosecutor's duty to prove the constituent elements of the crime, and the prohibition of torturing the accused to obtain confessions and information are brought to mind.
In this case, the defendant was told that if they remained silent in response to police questions, an adverse inference would be drawn from their silence.
In this case, the accused emphasized his right to silence and stated that he did not want to answer the police questions.
If the defendant, during police interrogation, refrains from providing explanations that would normally be expected to be stated under the specific circumstances, the court or jury may draw an adverse inference from their silence; 2.
When a police officer believes that a person's presence at a certain time and place could indicate the attribution of an accusation of involvement in the commission of a crime to them, and the defendant refuses to answer regarding this, the court or jury may draw an adverse inference from their silence.
In 1994, the United Kingdom passed the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, based on which the court may, if the defendant refrains from stating facts during police interrogation which they later rely upon in their defense, draw any appropriate inference from their silence.
(
, 
, 
)
