The right to remain silent on the courtroom is, in my opinion, an inalienable right that must be respected in any circumstance. The right of speech, gathered in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, also includes people’s right to choose when to speak or when to remain quiet.

In the specific case of the suspect of a crime, that right should be guaranteed in order to choose whether not to answer a question that may attempt against their own interests, and desires not to commit perjury. By forcing the suspect to answer to all the inquiries, the accusation might realize a series of questions carefully thought to manipulate the words of the individual with the purpose of making them look guilty, and so the system would be working in a favourable way for the accusation part, which would not happen by respecting the right to remain silent. Hereby, the suspects would have the opportunity of protecting themselves and so we might consider the right to remain silent as a guarantee of the continuity of the presumption of innocence, other one of the basic policies of a fair and egalitarian justice system.

The witnesses, on the other hand, have been called to declare with an aim and for a reason that does not necessarily affect them directly, so their situation is not the same as the suspect’s.

Therefore, we can conclude that it is necessary to maintain the right of the suspects to remain silent in a courtroom.