Running head: NEMO TENETUR PRODERE SE IPSUM

SUBMITTED BY
SAVEEZA KABSHA
2015-LLB-022

SUBMITTED TO
MA’AM ZAHISH FARID KHAN

DATE
08-10-18

SEMESTER
SEVENTH
LAW OF EVIDENCE-I
DEPARTMENT
PRINCIPLE “NEMO TENETUR LAW
PRODERE SE IPSUM” & THE PENAL
LAWS OF PAKISTAN
NEMOuTENETUR PRODEREuSE IPSUM 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………………….…… 03
1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………….…...… 04
1.1. Historical Background ………………………………………………………….
…….… 04
1.2. Legal Maxims …………………………………………………………….…….
…….… 04
1.2.1. Nemo Tenetur Prodere Se Ipsum ………………………………....…….…….…
04
1.2.2. Nemo TeneturiSe IpsumiAccusare ………………………………..…….….……
04
1.2.3. NemoiTeneturiSe Detegere …………………………….…………………….… 05
1.2.4. Nemo TeneturiBeginsel …………………………….……………..………….…
05
1.2.5. Nemo TeneturuEdere Contra Se ……………….…………………….……….…
05
1.3. Purpose ……………………………………………..…………………...
……………… 05
1.4. Features …………………………………………………………………..………..
…… 05
1.5. Conditions ……………………………………………..……………………..
………… 05
2. International Law ……………………………….…………………………………….......…
06
2.1. InternationaliCovenant on Civiliand PoliticaliRights, 1976
………………………….… 06
2.2. Statuteiof the InternationaliCriminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 1993
…….… 06
2.3. Statuteuof the InternationaluTribunal foruRwanda, 1994
…………………………….… 06
NEMOuTENETUR PRODEREuSE IPSUM 2

2.4. AmericanuConvention On HumanuRights, 1969

…………………………………….… 06
3. Other Legal Systems …………………………………………………………………..….…
06
3.1. The UniteduStates Constitution (Bill ofuRights) ………………………………….
….… 06
3.2. CanadianuCharter of Rights anduFreedoms, 1982
……………………………………… 07
3.3. The Constitution of Japan, 1946
………………………………………………………… 07
3.4. The Constitutionuof India,u1950 ………………………………………..
……………… 07
3.5. Constitutionuof the Republicuof South Africa,u1996 …………………………….
…..… 07
3.6. CriminaluProcedure Code of theuRepublic of Macedonia, u2010 ………………..
…..… 07
3.7. Code of CriminaluProcedure of theuRepublic ofuKosovo, 2013 ………………….
….… 08
4. Pakistani Legal System ………………………………………..……………………….……
08
4.1. Constitutionuof the IslamicuRepublic ofuPakistan, 1973
………………………….…… 08
4.1.1. Ingredients of Article 13(b) ……………………………………………..…….…
08
4.1.1.1. Accused Person ……………………………………..
……………….… 08
4.1.1.2. Compulsion
…………………………………………………………… 09
4.1.1.3. Witness Against Himself
……………………………………………… 10
 NEMOuTENETUR PRODEREuSE IPSUM 3

4.1.2. Civil and Administrative Proceedings ……………………………..……………

10
4.1.3. When Protection can’t be Claimed ………………………………………………
10
4.2. Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898
…………………………………………...… 10
4.2.1. Recording of Witnesses’ Statement …………………………….………………
11
4.2.2. Statements under 161 and 164 CrPC ………………………………………….…
11
4.3. Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 ……………………………………………………..
………… 11
4.3.1. Scope …………………………………………………………………………… 12
4.3.2. Safeguard in Article 15 ………………………………………….………………
12
4.3.3. Article 15 QSO and Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan …………………
12
4.3.4. Statement of an Accomplice ………………………………………………….…
13
4.3.5. Sections 161, 172 CrPC and Article 15 Qanun-e-Shahadat (QSO), 1984 …….…
13
5. Islamic Law ………………………………………………………………………………… 13
REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………….………
15
 NEMOuTENETUR PRODEREuSE IPSUM 4

ABSTRACT

In any criminal legal system, the accused enjoys various rights against prosecution like right to

defense, right to stay silent, right to information regarding accusation, presumptionuof innocence

untiluproven guilty, rightuto fair trialuand rightuagainst self-incrimination. The right to self-

incrimination is one of the fundamental rights of an accused, which provides him with a privilege

to save himself from giving evidence against him unless it be voluntary (confession). This

principle is based on Latin maxim nemoutenetur prodereuse ipsum which meansu that one

shouldn’t beucoerced to betray himself in public. Related maxims include, nemo

teneturuprodere se ipsum, nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare, nemo tenetur seudetegere, nemo

tenetur beginsel, nemo tenetur edere contra se. The right against self-incrimination has its

origins from Talmudic Law. Lately, this principle is found in commonulaw. There rightuagainst

self-incrimination is recognized in international laws, domestic laws of other countries as well as

Pakistan’s Constitution and Penal Laws with certain exceptions. Shari’a Law also recognized

this right.

Key Words: self-incrimination, accussed, defendant, innocent, testimony, burden of proof,

criminal proceedings, international laws, Islamic laws, Pakistani laws, penal laws
 NEMOuTENETUR PRODEREuSE IPSUM 5

1. Introduction

In any criminal legal system, the accused enjoys various rights against prosecution like right

to defense, right to stay silent, right to information regarding accusation, presumptionuof

innocence untiluproven guilty, rightuto fair trial and right againstuself-incrimination etc. The

right to self-incrimination is one of the fundamental rights of an accused, which provides him

with a privilege to save himself from giving evidence against him unless it be voluntary

(confession). This principle is based on Latin maxim nemoutenetur prodereuse ipsum which

meansuthat one shouldn’t be coerced to betray himself in public. Thus, detectives and courts

can’t compel the accused to present incriminating statements against himself. However, this

right has been incorporated in different legal systems of the world in their domestic laws in

various ways having certain exceptions to it. International law also recognizes this right.

The principle against self-incrimination is only applicable in criminal law, not in other laws;

for instance, taxation law. However the state can request them to provide other types of

information which may carry apprehension of negative effect. (Trechsel,2005)

1.1. Historical Background

The right against self-incrimination has its origins from Talmudic Law. Lately, this

principle is found in common law. It had probably originated in eleventh and twelfth

century developments in common law; precisely in 1641 when High Commission and

Star Chamber had been abolished with prohibition on ex officio oath. (Schlauri, 2003)

1.2. Legal Maxims

1.2.1. Nemo Tenetur Prodere Se Ipsum

No oneushould be compelled toubetray himselfuin public. (Helmholz, 1997)

1.2.2. NemouTenetur Se IpsumuAccusare

NEMOuTENETUR PRODEREuSE IPSUM 6

No oneuis bound touaccuse himself. (Mahmood, 2016)

1.2.3. Nemo Tenetur Se Detegere

No one can be obliged to assert his own criminal responsibility. (William, 2017)

1.2.4. Nemo Tenetur Beginsel

Nouone can be forceduto cooperate withuhis own conviction

1.2.5. NemouTenetur Edere Contra Se

Nobody is obliged to accuse himself

1.3. Purpose

The right touself-incrimination is considered a rightuof the accused orudefendant in

criminal trials. It saves him from torture, violence, physical degradation and inhumane

treatment in order to extract evidence or bear confession. There exists a direct bridge

between guarantee of ‘presumptionuofuinnocence’ and right againstuself-incrimination

because forcing the accused to testify against himself will shift theuburden of proof of

innocenceuon himself instead ofuprosecution to proveuguilt.

1.4. Features

Theucharacteristic features of the principleuof right againstuself-incrimination are;

 Thereuis presumptionuof innocence onuthe accused

 Theuburden ofuproof is on theuprosecution

 Theuaccused doesn’t need to testifyuagainst hisuwill (Abdul Basit, 2016)

1.5. Conditions

There are three fundamental conditions in order to seek safeguard against self-

incrimination;

 Accusation of offence on person

 NEMOuTENETUR PRODEREuSE IPSUM 7

 Element of compulsion to testify

 Testimony must be against one’s own self (Abdul Basit, 2016)

2. International Law

There are various provisions in favour of right against self-incrimination in international

laws.

2.1. InternationaluCovenant on Civiluand PoliticaluRights, 1976

Articleu14 (3)-uIn the determinationuof any criminal chargeuagainst him,

everyoneushall be entitleduto the following minimumuguarantees, in fulluequality: (g)

Notuto be compelleduto testify againstuhimself oruto confessuguilt.

2.2. Statuteuof the International CriminaluTribunal for the FormeruYugoslavia,

1993

Articleu21(4)-uIn the determination ofuany charge againstuthe accusedupursuant to the

presentuStatute, the accusedushall be entitled touthe following minimumuguarantees, in

fulluequality: (g) not to beucompelled to testifyuagainst himself or touconfess guilt.

2.3. Statuteuof the InternationaluTribunal foruRwanda, 1994

Articleu20(4)-uIn the determination ofucharge against theuaccused pursuant to

theupresent Statute, theuaccused shall be entitleduto the following minimumuguarantees,

in fulluequality: (g) Not to be compelleduto testify against himselfuor herself or

touconfess guilt.

2.4. AmericanuConvention onuHuman Rights, 1969

Articleu8(2)-uDuring theuproceedings, every personuis entitled, withufull equality,

touthe following minimumuguarantees: (g) the rightunot to be compelleduto be a witness

against himselfuor to pleaduguilty;

 NEMOuTENETUR PRODEREuSE IPSUM 8

3. Other Legal Systems

3.1. The United States Constitution (Billuof Rights)

FifthuAmendment- Nouperson… shall be compelleduin any criminalucase to be a

witness againstuhimself

3.2. CanadianuCharter of Rightsuand Freedoms, 1982

Article 11-uAny person chargeduwith an offence hasuthe right (c) not to beucompelled

to beua witness inuproceedings againstuthat person in respectuof the offence;

3.3. TheuConstitution ofuJapan, 1946

Articleu38-uNo person shallube compelleduto testify againstuhimself. Confessionumade

under compulsion, tortureuor threat, or afteruprolonged arrest or detentionushall not be

admitteduin evidence. No personushall be convicted or punisheduin cases where theuonly

proof againstuhim is his ownuconfession.

3.4. The Constitutionuof India, 1950

Articleu20-uProtection in respectuconviction foruoffences (3)- uNo person accuseduof

any offenceushall beucompelled to be auwitness againstuhimself.

3.5. Constitutionuof the Republicuof SouthuAfrica, 1996

Articleu35-uArrested, detaineduand accusedupersons

(1)- Everyoneuwho is arrested foruallegedly committing anuoffence has theuright (a) to

remainusilent; (b)uto be informedupromptly (i) of the rightuto remain silent; and (ii)

ofuthe consequencesuof not remainingusilent; (c) not to beucompelled to make

anyuconfession or admissionuthat could be useduin evidence againstuthat person.

3.6. CriminaluProcedure Code of theuRepublic ofuMacedonia, 2010

 NEMOuTENETUR PRODEREuSE IPSUM 9

Article 70- Everyudefendant shall have theufollowing basicurights: not to beucoerced

into testifying againstuhimself or herself andupeople that are closeuand plead guilty;

Article 216- The witnessushall not be obligeduto answer certainuquestions if it is likely

thatuby doing so, theuwitness would exposeuhimself or herself oruauclose relative to

formidableushame, significantumaterial loss orucriminal prosecution.

3.7. Codeuof Criminal Procedureuof the Republicuof Kosovo, u2013

Article 10(2)-uThe defendantushall not be obliged touplead his or herucase or touanswer

any questionsuand, if he or sheupleads his or herucase, he or sheushall not beuobliged to

incriminateuhimself or herselfuor his or her nextuof kin nor to confessuguilt. This right is

notuimplicated when audefendant has voluntarilyuentered into an agreementuto

cooperate withuthe state prosecutor. (3)uForcing a confession or any otherustatement by

the useuof torture, uforce, threat or underuthe influence of drugs, oruin any otherusimilar

way from theudefendant or from anyuother participant inuthe proceedings shallube

prohibiteduand punishable.

4. Pakistani Legal System

4.1. Constitutionuof the IslamicuRepublic ofuPakistan, 1973

Articleu13-uProtection againstudouble punishmentuand self-incrimination

No Person:-

(b)ushall, when accuseduof an offence, beucompelled to be auwitness

againstuhimself.

4.1.1. Ingredients of Article 13(b)

There are three ingredients of Article 13(b).

 The right is available to accused person

NEMOuTENETUR PRODEREuSE IPSUM 10

 The right is of protection against compulsion to testify

 The evidence can incriminate himself

4.1.1.1. Accused Person

The subject of the fundamental right provided under article 13(b) is only

extends to an accused person making a statement. It doesn’t provide

protection to auperson who becomes accuseduof an offence after giving

statement. [AIR 1961 SC 1808, AIR 1962 SC 1821]. The protection against

self-incrimination can’t be claimed by hypothetical person who may become

accused in future in some offence. [AIR 1992 SC 1795] The privilege is also

available in court trial stage. [AIR 1961 SC 1808]

4.1.1.2. Compulsion

Compulsionumeans duress. It is essentially physicaluobjective act andunot a

stateuof mind of accused unless his mind is conditioned by coercion and the

testimony is involuntary and consequently, extorted.

Presence of accused in police custody at time of making statement will not

imply that compulsion was practiced. [AIR 1957 SC 211, AIR 1961 SC

1808]. If police employs third degree methods to extract statement, it would

be barred under Article 13(b). [AIR 1966 All. 142] When accused is trapped

in talk, it doesn’t fall under compulsion. [AIR 1968 SC 147] Accused possess

the right to silence. [AIR 1978 SC 1025] Directions to produce record or

information by investigation agency to accused is not violative of Article

13(b). [1989 PCr.LJ 1921] Tape-recording telephonic conversation between

parties with the permission of one party constitutes valid evidence because no
NEMOuTENETUR PRODEREuSE IPSUM 11

compulsion was practiced and moreover, the appellant had no case against

him then. [AIR 1973 SC 157] Results obtained by polygraph tests and brain

fingerprinting fall under compulsion. [AIR 2010 SC 1974] Such test results

aren’t admissible asuevidence even ifusubject hasuconsented to it because of

lack of conscious control of subject on himself. However if some material is

discovered subsequently, it is permissible evidence. [AIR 2010 SC 340]

4.1.1.3. Witness Against Himself

It is a fundamental right that one can’t be compelled to be witness against

himself. [PLD 2002 Pesh. 118]. The protection doesn’t extend to person on

matters which will not incriminate him. [AIR 1973 SC 1196].

Article 13(b) only protects against giving information based on personal

knowledge which is personal testimony. Giving of thumb impression,

specimen handwriting, and signatures isn’t violation of Article 13(b). [AIR

1961 SC 1808, AIR 2008 SC 368]

4.1.2. Civil and Administrative Proceedings

Article 13(b) only provides protection against criminal proceedings in courtuof

law or otherutribunal where auperson is accuseduof crime which isupunishable

underuPenal Code oruspecial or localulaw. It doesn’t extenduto civil or other non-

criminal proceedings. [AIR 1953 SC 325, AIR 1961 SC 29]. So even if primary

aim of administrative investigations is to find out whether person has committed

offence or not, Article 13(b) doesn’t apply there.

4.1.3. When Protection can’t be Claimed

 Producing incriminating material voluntarily

NEMOuTENETUR PRODEREuSE IPSUM 12

 Producing non-incriminating material which may exonerate accused or advance

investigation

 Producing incriminating material otherwise than by compulsion

4.2. Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898

Sectionu161-uExamination ofuwitnesses byupolice.

(1)uAny police-officer making anuinvestigation under this Chapteruor any police-

officerunot below suchurank as the Provincial Governmentumay, by generaluor special

order, prescribeuin this behalf, actinguon the requisition ofusuch officer, may examine

orally anyuperson supposed to beuacquainted with the factsuand circumstances ofuthe

case.

(2)uSuch person shall beubound to answer all questionsurelating to such caseuput to

himuby such officer, otheruthan questions theuanswers to whichuwould have a

tendencyuto expose him to a criminalucharge or to a penaltyuor forfeiture.

4.2.1. Recording of Witnesses’ Statement

Section 161 allows investigating officer to practice discretion in recording

witnesses’ statements but he must practice it soundly and arbitrarily without

handicapping accused in his defense. [1998 MLD 2332] Police doesn’t have

authority to detain someone called for giving evidence about commission of

offence. [PLD 1959 Lah. 665]

4.2.2. Statements under 161 and 164 CrPC

Statement under section 164 CrPC is made before a Magistrate and is considered

voluntary statement. Authenticity of statement under 164 CrPC is greater than

statement under 161 CrPC. [2001 YLR 3233, 1996 PCr.LJ 1019]
NEMOuTENETUR PRODEREuSE IPSUM 13

4.3. Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Articleu15-uWitness not excusedufrom answeringuon ground thatuanswer will

criminate.

A witnessushall not be excusedufrom answering any question as touany matter relevant

to the matteruin issue in any suit oruin any civil or criminaluproceedings, upon the

grounduthat the answer tousuch question willucriminate, or may tendudirectly or

indirectly toucriminate, such witness, oruthat it will expose, orutend directly or

indirectlyuto expose, suchuwitness to a penaltyuor forfeitureuof any kind:

Provideduthat no suchuanswer, which auwitness shall beucompelled to give, shall

subjectuhim to any arrest oruprosecution, or beuproved against himuin any criminal

proceedings, except auprosecution for giving falseuevidence by suchuanswer.

4.3.1. Scope

Articleu15 of Qanun-e-Shahadatu1984 abolishes the privilegeuof common law

regarding self-incrimination. This article has its application in both, civil and

criminal matters. Before Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, the voluntary statement of

witness in a court could be used as an evidence against him in civil or criminal

trial. [PLD 1979 Kar. 125]

4.3.2. Safeguard in Article 15

Article 15 provides a safeguard to the witness that his testimony will not be used

against him except in case against him for false accusation. Furthermore, he can

be excused from answering questions which do not relate to matter-in-issue and

are otherwise criminatory.

NEMOuTENETUR PRODEREuSE IPSUM 14

The protection under Article 15 extends only to such answers in which a witness

excused to answer, but Court practiced compulsion instead of excusing him. [ILR

21 Cal. 392]

4.3.3. Article 15 QSO anduArticle 13 of the Constitutionuof Pakistan

Articleu15 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat,u1984 is not contrary to the

fundamentaluright guaranteed in articleu13 of Constitutionuof Pakistan because

no Law or Court can take away fundamental rights. Furthermore, article 15 of

Qanun-e-Shahadat makes it mandatory not to use such evidence extracted by

compulsion against theuwitness in anyucivil or criminaluproceedings which

shows thatuthe protection is guaranteed. Article 15 of QSO deals with a witness

testifying in someone else’s case. Article 13 of Constitution basically guarantees

this right to the accused himself.

4.3.4. Statement of an Accomplice

Article 15 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 deals with compulsory testimony of a

witness by court. If an accomplice is providing voluntary statement, the protection

under Article 15 is not available for him. However, in such salutations, sections

337-3339-A of CrPC will come into play. Anyone can be a witness according to

section 3 of QSO. So an accomplice is a competent witness. If coercion is not

practiced by court to extract evidence, the witness is not granted protection under

Article 15 of QSO.

4.3.5. Sections 161, 172 CrPC and Article 15 Qanun-e-Shahadat (QSO), 1984

Court can force investigating officers in cross-examination to consult case diaries

and answer the questions correctly in terms of Article 15 QSO. Statements under
NEMOuTENETUR PRODEREuSE IPSUM 15

161 aren’t privileged as they are public documents as per Article 49 of QSO.

Provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 are independent of Criminal Procedure

Code, 1898. [PLD 2003 Lah. 290]

5. Islamic Law

Audefendant cannot beucompelled to give a confession, anduhas the right touremain silent. A

coerceduconfession, or confession taken underuforce is not admissible. (Adel Omar Sherif,

2003) A confession, onceugiven, can beuwithdrawn even after theusentence has been passed

oruduring its execution. A validuconfession cannot beugiven by a personuwho doesunot have

fullupossession of hisufaculties. The judgeumust not blindlyuaccept an offereduconfession

but mustuverify that the defendant’suconfession was notumade merely touprotect another

person. For a confessionuto be accepted, theudefendant must not only admit touthe category

of crime but must provideurelevant details to supportuhis assertion of guilt. Theustrict

requirements for acceptanceuof confessions stem from theuconcept that there is a

higherujustice than the justice inuthe courts. If the defendantuis truly guilty, but hisuguilt

may not beufairly proven in court, theudefendant will stilluhave to answer to God.

Theuhidden truth isuconsidered to be aumatter betweenuthe individualuand his Creator.

(Hashim Kamali, 2003) UnderuHanfi school of thought, a confession is admissible if an

accused person admits his guilt/crime four times at four different places. [PLD 1998 SC

1445]
NEMOuTENETUR PRODEREuSE IPSUM 16

REFERENCES

Statutes, Acts, Laws

 InternationaluCovenant on Civiluand Political Rights, 1976

 Statute ofuthe InternationaluCriminal Tribunal for theuFormer Yugoslavia, 1993

 Statuteuof the International Tribunalufor Rwanda, 1994

 AmericanuConvention on HumanuRights, 1969

 The UniteduStates Constitution (Billuof Rights)

 CanadianuCharter of Rightsuand Freedoms, 1982

 The Constitutionuof Japan, 1946

 The Constitutionuof India, 1950

 Constitution of theuRepublic of South Africa, 1996

 CriminaluProcedureuCode of the Republic ofuMacedonia, 2010

 Code ofuCriminal Procedure of the Republicuof Kosovo, 2013

 Constitution of theuIslamicuRepublic ofuPakistan, 1973

 Code ofuCriminaluProcedure (CrPC), 1898

 Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Case Laws

 AIR 1961 SC 1808

 AIR 1962 SC 1821

 AIR 1992 SC 1795

 AIR 1957 SC 211

 AIR 1968 SC 147

NEMOuTENETUR PRODEREuSE IPSUM 17

 AIR 1978 SC 1025

 AIR 1973 SC 1196

 AIR 2008 SC 368

 AIR 1973 SC 157

 AIR 1953 SC 325

 AIR 1961 SC 29

 AIR 2010 SC 1974

 AIR 2010 SC 340

 PLD 1959 Lah. 665

 PLD 2003 Lah. 290

 PLD 2002 Pesh. 118

 PLD 1979 Kar. 125

 PLD 1998 SC 1445

 2001 YLR 3233

 1996 PCr.LJ 1019

 1989 PCr.LJ 1921

 1998 MLD 2332

 ILR 21 Cal. 392

Other Sources

 Abdul Basit, M. (2016). TheuConstitution of theuIslamic Republic OfuPakistan With

Commentary, Federal Law House.

NEMOuTENETUR PRODEREuSE IPSUM 18

 Burton'suLegal Thesaurus, 4E.uCopyright © 2007uby William C.uBurton. Useduwith

permission ofuthe McGraw-Hill Companies,uInc. Retrievedufrom

<htp://context.reverso.net/translation/italian-english/principio+nemo+tenetur+se+detegere>

Accessed (05-10-18)

 Helmholz,uR. H. (1997). TheuPrivilege againstuSelf-Incrimination: itsuorigins and

development, Chicago: TheuUniversity of ChicagouPress.

 Kamali, M.H. (2003). The Rightuto PersonaluSafety (Haq-al-Amn) anduthe Principle of

Legalityuin IslamicuShari’a, in CriminaluJustice inuIslam, (MuhammaduAbdel Haleem,

etual. eds.)

 Mahmood, M. (2016). The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; amendments and case law

up-to-date, Vol 1, Al-Qanoon Publishers.

 Omar, A.S. (2003). Generalities on CriminaluProcedure UnderuIslamic Shari’a,

inuCriminal Justiceuin Islam, (MuhammaduAbdel Haleem, et al. eds.)

 Schlauri,uR. (2003). DasuVerbot des Selbstbelasstungszwangs imuStrafverfahren:

Konkretisierungmeines GrundrechtsudurchuRechtsvergleichung,uZurich: Schulthess.

 Treshcel,uS. (2005). Human Rightsuin CriminaluProceedings, Oxford: OxforduUniversity

Press.