ficer (if not then repeated during the trial) may not be the sole evidence of guilt.29 A confession given in the pre-trial phase must be supported by other evidence.30 c. Judicial scrutiny: The laws of some OSCE countries require heightened scrutiny of confession evidence by the courts. In another Western European participating State, for example, a “confession, like any other evidence, is left to [the] judge’s discretion” and can only be the sole evidence of guilt if the judge is satisfied it is sufficient.31 Despite this, the admissibility of the confession must be subject to an adversarial process before the judge,32 and the judge has to decide according to their “innermost conviction”.33 d. Procedural safeguards: Some countries require the court to be satisfied that certain procedural safeguards have been met before admitting confession evidence. In Germany, for example, violations of suspects’ procedural rights, such as of the obligation to notify a suspect of their right to remain silent, can lead to a confession being deemed inadmissible.34 In Hungary, confessions obtained by “significantly limiting procedural rights” are inadmissible.35 In England and Wales, there are detailed codes of practice related to questioning by police officers and the audio recording of interviews with suspects. The audio recording of any interview is mandatory, and exceptions are clearly prescribed in those codes.36 At the regional level, there are also developments linking the admissibility of confessions with the protection of procedural safeguards for suspects. The European Union has outlined minimum safeguards, namely, the right to access to a lawyer, the entitlement to free legal advice, the right to be informed of the accusation, the right to interpretation and translation, and the right to remain silent.37 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Judgment of the Spanish Supreme Court, 174/2015 of 14 May 2015. Judgment of the Spanish Supreme Court, 655/2011 of 28 June 2011. Code of Criminal Procedure of France (2006), Article 428: “Confessions, as any other type of evidence, are left to the free appreciation of the judges.” French Supreme Court, Criminal Chamber, 21 October 1965, No. 65–90.318. Code of Criminal Procedure (2006), Article 427: ”Except where the law otherwise provides, offences may be proved by any mode of evidence and the judge decides according to his innermost conviction. The judge may only base his decision on evidence which was submitted in the course of the hearing and adversarially discussed before him.” Strafprozeßordnung, (StPO), Section 136. Questionnaire response Hungarian Helsinki Committee referencing Act XC of 2017 on the Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 167(5). Home Office, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) 67(7B), CODE E Revised Code of Practice on Audio Recording Interviews with Suspects, (2016), para. 3; and CODE C Revised Code of Practice for the Detention, Treatment and Questioning of Persons by Police Officers (2018), for instance para. 11.5: “no interviewer may try to obtain answers or elicit a statement by the use of oppression.” Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, Article 3. 17