Is silence (after all) golden? Once again on criminal liability for false deposits

Abstract

The paper discusses the holistic consequences of introducing article 233 § 1a to the Criminal Code, focusing on the procedural position of an interrogated perpetrator. It refers to the most current position of the Supreme Court on that issue. Until recent amendments, to CC the judiciary and most of the doctrine has unanimously claimed that it is contrary to the constitutional right to defense to hold a witness who is an actual perpetrator but still being questioned under the regime of criminal liability for providing false testimony. Recent changes in that field bring questions on the constitutionality of newly introduced crime and the impact of one?s silence on their position in a criminal trial. Is it allowed to make an adverse inference from an interrogated witness/indicted person?s silence? Does invoking the right to remain silent guaranteed by the Code of Criminal Procedure warrants any sort of further privilege as it happens under the 5^th Amendment to the US Constitution? What can be indicated as a Strasbourg?s standard in that field? We propose a comparative analysis indicating the severe risks of incoherency and significant new threats to the right to defense.