This article sheds comparative and contextual light on European and international human rights debates around the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to silence. It does so through an examination of adverse inferences from criminal suspect’s silence in three European jurisdictions with differing procedural traditions: Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands. The article highlights the manner in which adverse inferences have come to be drawn at trial in the three jurisdictions, despite the existence of both European and domestic legal protections for the right to silence. It also explores differing approaches to the practical operation of inference-drawing procedures, including threshold requirements, varying evidential uses of silence and procedural safeguards. The authors argue that human rights’ standard-setting institutions ought to provide clarity on the conditions under which adverse inferences may be tolerated, including the purpose(s) for which inferences may be used, and the necessary surrounding safeguards.

中文翻译：

---

从犯罪嫌疑人的沉默推论中的人权保护

本文对欧洲和国际围绕反对自证其罪的特权和沉默权的人权辩论进行了比较和背景分析。它通过对三个具有不同程序传统的欧洲司法管辖区（爱尔兰、意大利和荷兰）的犯罪嫌疑人保持沉默的不利推论进行审查来做到这一点。这篇文章强调了在三个司法管辖区的审判中得出不利推论的方式，尽管欧洲和国内都存在对沉默权的法律保护。它还探讨了推理绘图程序实际操作的不同方法，包括阈值要求、沉默的不同证据使用和程序保障。