The fifth amendment: The right to collaborate
A investigated, according to article 24.2 CE, you have the right not to declare against yourself and not to confess guilty, that is, to exercise your constitutional right to non -self-criminality.
This right should not be understood as a mere act of keeping silent. Not only does it understand verbal expression, but any other act. In other words, the accused does not have the obligation to collaborate with the instruction. This lack of collaboration cannot assume in any case the attribution of a new crime as long as it is limited to not facilitating the required documentation. Therefore, the accused is the only subject to whom he is exonerated from the general duty to collaborate with justice.
Comparing the exemplified case, where the accused was asked of a voice test, with the request for an breathalyzer test, although in the first case they were not obliged to facilitate this test if they are in the second case.
For breathalyzer tests there is an express regulation that contemplates and regulates them, imposing the obligation of submission to the test. Therefore, there is no example, in the case of an example, a commission of crime of disobedience for refusing to facilitate voice test. However, if it would exist when refusing to perform the breathalyzer test.
In any case, the fact that the accused do not facilitate the voice test voluntarily, does not mean that the test cannot be carried out. It can be done through the necessary elements outside collaboration. What cannot be attributed in any case is a crime of disobedience for not undergoing the test voluntarily.
The Supreme Court again dictated, in the case of obligation to a accused to submit to a calligraphic expert evidence that: "The right not to declare against himself and the principle" Nemo Teneur is Ipsum Accusare "constitute rights recognized in article 24-2 of the Constitution and not only refer to self-accused statements, but also, to the right of the accused of not providing elements that can be used for their own incrimination.
With this, we can conclude that the Supreme Court is clear and opts to defend the constitutional right of article 24.2 although sometimes this can lengthen or hinder the instruction of the causes. But in this case, values at stake must prevail and opt for the defense of constitutionally enshrined law.
Leave feedback