El presente estudio examina el derecho al silencio del investigado como manifestación constitucionalizada implícitamente en el derecho de defensa contenido en el art. 24.2 CE, analizando su tránsito desde el modelo inquisitivo hacia un sistema acusatorio que prioriza la autonomía defensiva y la dignidad humana conforme al estándar constitucional del art. 10.1 CE. Su análisis posibilita la delimitación de los contornos del concepto y su núcleo esencial, distinguiéndolo del resto de perspectivas que componen un derecho de defensa pluridimensional. El «ius tacendi» presenta una ontología jurídica diferenciada del «nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare», postulándose en un ejercicio pasivo de defensa material cuya naturaleza impide su interpretación en perjuicio del investigado y un valor procesal neutro. La garantía efectiva del derecho al silencio en el ordenamiento interno obedece a la integración, ex art. 10.2 CE, de la normativa internacional en materia de derechos humanos, confirmatoria de su carácter connatural al individuo en una sociedad democrática. Sin embargo, el desarrollo legislativo de este derecho fundamental ha sido exiguo y sometido a los vaivenes de la jurisprudencia, circunstancia que requiere una mayor implicación del legislador nacional.

—

The Right to Remain Silent of the Person Under Investigation: Constitutional Framework and Procedural Implications

This study examines the right to silence of the investigated party as a constitutionally enshrined manifestation implicit in the right to defense contained in Article 24.2 of the Spanish Constitution, analyzing its transition from the inquisitorial model to an accusatory system that prioritizes defensive autonomy and human dignity in accordance with the constitutional standard of Article 10.1 of the Spanish Constitution. This analysis makes it possible to define the contours of the concept and its essential core, distinguishing it from other perspectives that make up a multidimensional right to defense. The “ius tacendi” has a legal ontology that is different from the “nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare,” postulating itself in a passive exercise of material defense whose nature prevents its interpretation to the detriment of the person under investigation and has a neutral procedural value. The effective guarantee of the right to silence in the domestic legal system is due to the integration, pursuant to Article 10.2 of the Spanish Constitution, of international human rights law, confirming its inherent nature in a democratic society. However, the legislative development of this fundamental right has been meager and subject to the vagaries of case law, a circumstance that requires greater involvement by the national legislature.