Prohibition to compell the persons to give evidence against themselves as the constitutional guarantee in the criminal procedure

Utilizing legal doctrines and court practices from different legal systems, the article examines features of prohibition to compel defendants to testify against themselves, members of their families, or close relatives, as a guarantee of person’s constitutional rights in a criminal process. In aiming to define the content of this constitutional level guarantee, the author examines its historical preconditions, forms, and their scientific justification in theory and practice of common law and continental law countries. The main goal of the article is to analyze the problems of regulating and implementing the prohibition to compel defendants to testify against themselves in Lithuania’s criminal process. The article discusses whether the imperative nature of witness’ immunity, set by the state and prohibiting to question this subject of a process about criminal acts (s)he committed, is scientifically justified and practically effective. The author of the article makes an assumption that imperative nature of the mentioned immunity, forbidding to question a witness about criminal acts (s)he committed, even when (s)he voluntarily agrees to testify, is indeed ungrounded. The author claims that to regulate and properly implement this prohibition, it is necessary to employ dispositive method of legal regulation, which allows questioning such witness, if (s)he agrees to testify. Besides, the article analyzes the nature of witness’ immunity, releasing this subject from obligation to testify against him/herself or his/her close relative