حق المتهم في الامتناع عن التصريح.

Abstract

According to various indices and testimony, the foundation of man can not be that "innocence" and, assuming it manifests itself in the criminal law, it is considered as a natural thing that goes in line with reason and reasoning . Thus, we have regarded it as a universal principle, which has been approved by all mankind, prior to its constitutional recognition . All countries have devoted enormous efforts to protect its freedom and preserve the society of law less ness and crime, because it is considered as absolutely baseless While the world pays tribute to his triumph and transcendence . The universal agreement which is enshrined in international declarations and charters of statements Bill said that innocence is a crucial and fundamental principle for an accused can defend it self and does not disappear with suspicion or accusation itself . It remains immanent to the legal person until trial, enriched by evidence to come from actual incidents of crime . Thus the accused have the right not to reveal the facts unfolded in order to maintain their innocence at the defence . While innocence is a legal status more to establish and lead the trial of the accused to a fair and correct, it is mixed and even refused by some individuals who see that society has the right to know the truth, revealing the truth and to condemn criminals who have caused such facts harmful to society. The accused is obliged to sympathize with the authorities and reveal the unfolding events of the incident without any detour, knowing he is not obliged to prove his innocence because he can use deception as a way so as not to reach the truth during the different phases of criminal proceedings, and that he is given according to individual freedom that the law gives him legally . But during the various stages of legal condemnation there is a possibility where the victim is not convinced by the outcome of the trial revealed, leading to the idea of an individual likely revenge, which affects other person that 'Accused himself, and thereby loses all the safeguards system according to the indictment . The government authorities, whose role is reflected in the protection system in society, must not encourage any possible without taking into consideration the legislation to be in possession confessions of the accused according to the system of investigation . 215 Thus the legal authorities involved in the research, finding, training and judgement according to the criminal trial must take into account a primary objective, which is the establishment of a system that focuses on the rights of 'Individual, at one hand to be physically as well as privacy and the other hand give priority to representing the interests of society, in order to avoid bewilderment and crime and focus on the individual as such . Noting that the Islamic religion is the first founding of these rights, and achieving that balance is the divine right first, and that the assumption of 'clearance and the origin of things permitted' and as a primordial principle which is based on the Islamic system, which is strict and severe and is characterized by the vision of limits and penalties in the various crimes that can harm society, according to the code of morals or economic security by adopting contained and clear and which are similar to the system of legal evidence which amounts only to the absolute authority of a judge to be persuaded by the vision of the legislature. There is also the system of 'Taazir', which in no way saying, is the one that is Interested in human right which is in the situation abandonment of the trial, or entry into agreement or reconciliation, and this is just the result Achieved by persuasion of the judge during the trial . As a result, the accused's right not to reveal reality, is regarded as a right to defend itself, which comes necessarily an element of the prospect of innocence which must protect the accused from any means of 'Physical or moral humiliation, torture possible, or even putting in situations he disapproves derogatory or hypnosis yet its submission to' lie detector ', and all this in order to obtain confessions of the accused, something that is totally banned and challenged, because it results in a manner unconscious, from the time the accused is affected by an effect outside as a product hallucinating or 'lie detector' and so on. ... Bearing in mind that the desire to confess the truth in the crime must come spontaneously because it is the foundation and the basis of confessions as a conviction because the judge in possession of different ways that will enable access the reality or the truth of the facts, but are not limited to their own Confessions of the accused . Thus, the accused's right not to reveal his confession made by the principle of the prospect of original innocence .Il is regarded as a right of defence and can in no way be ignored or banned during the criminal trial, but we can not apply an absolute manner, because it s'affecte on one side by the various phases of criminal trial and another quoted by the evidence essential to access to the facts; not to mention also the degree of persuasion of the judge and his estimable authority and the privatization and the sensitivity of certain crimes, knowing that this principle s'influence mainly through every stage of criminal proceedings, and by the nature presented specific and modifiable , The person at each phase of the trial . 216 And although this right is not attested by the legislature in the phase of research and the finding, one can not find it compatible according to the principle of "the prospect of innocence during all phases criminal proceedings " . As a result, the judicial police officer is obliged to respect this principle of legislation and the various determinants proposed by the legislature himself, the heart of research and the finding, where it has imposed several guarantees the suspect during his custody under the law No. 01-03 issued on 8/6/2001, which supplements the law of criminal procedure in Article (51) bis of this law to outlaw torture and to ensure the human right in the heart of this phase and not achieve the freedom whatever the motive or reason, because at this stage the suspect is entitled by any of the prospect of innocence because they have not yet been accused, but in a reasonable manner it must be put on trial during this phase for the following reasons: 1. The phase is not legal. . 2. The various suspicions that according to revolve around the possibility that employers relate to personal liberty . 3. To achieve harmony in accordance with the law and reinsurance in during all phases of trial. But the legislator pointed out that right under Article (100) of the Criminal Procedure Court to the pre-trial phase and considered it as a right of defence which must necessarily be respected by the magistrate and reported in cases of absolute requisition in case the accused continues to benefit from this right. The latter will need a lot of insurance and guarantee to preserve their rights and prepare their defence, and it turned out that this right is claimed in a non-negligible way in court this phase as is a defence which allows the accused to prepare his defence knowing that the magistrate, after completing the various procedures to give the accused the opportunity to realize its right (the one not to reveal his confession), it continues procedures for the investigation and all sorts of different application, pending confirmation of the sentence appropriate at the end of trial by persuasion and what could well be inferred through the course of events. Regarding the phase of the trial, although it is characterized by the rights of defence, we find that its organization and specific characteristic, namely the name of discretion of the court, the pronunciation of the oral defense and confrontation between different actors (accused and victim), is none other than a means Basic to make the accused in an appropriate situation to disclose his confession and defends his own person, because it is an inevitable phase trial. The right of the accused not to mention the course of events is affected by the principle of individual persuasion of the judge who can consider it as an accusation as such, if the latter insists during this phase but it would harm to his post as a judge.