before an order of arraigo. Consequently, Article 133 bis of the Federal Code of 1999 and Article 12 of the Federal Law of 1996, in force when the acts of this case occurred, violated the rights to a hearing and to be brought before a judge or other official authorized by law to exercise judicial functions (Articles 8(1) and 7(5)). b. On the right of persons subject to arraigo not to be compelled to be a witness against themselves 131. The Court recalls that Article 8(2)(g) of the Convention sets out the rights not to be compelled to be a witness against oneself and not to plead guilty. The exercise of this right presupposes that the accused is able to freely decide whether to make a statement or, in other words, that there is no coercion that would impede the accused from freely making that determination. A corollary is that the person investigated has the right to remain silent and abstain from making any statement in an investigation or criminal proceeding in which he has been named as a probable participant or suspect in the commission of an unlawful act. In addition, as the Court has pointed out, since the administration of criminal justice must commence with an analysis of the lawfully obtained evidence, a means of investigation that entails the use of coercion to bend the will of the accused would no longer to be valid, which would be an instrumentalization of the person and a violation, per se, of such right, regardless of the grade of coercion (be it a threat, other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or torture) and of the result (in other words, that a confession or information is obtained). 110 132. This right not to be compelled to be a witness against oneself or to remain silent is also found in the constitutions of various countries of the region, including that of Mexico, 111 in the case law of the high courts of the countries of the region, 112 and in international human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Art. 14(1)(g). The European Court of Human Rights has held that while the right of non-incrimination is specifically contemplated in the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself are generally acknowledged international standards that are at the core of the idea of a fair proceeding by virtue of Article 6 of that Convention. 113 The UN Committee on Human Rights has indicated that this right “must be understood in terms of the absence of any direct or indirect physical or psychological pressure from the investigating authorities on the accused with a view to obtaining a confession of guilt.” 114 110 Cf. Case of Pollo Rivera et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 21, 2016. Series C No. 319, para. 176. Cf. Antigua and Barbuda, Article 15(7); Argentina, Article 18; Bahamas, Article 20(7); Barbados, Article 18(7); Belize, Article 6(6); Bolivia, Article 121; Brazil, Article 5(LXIII); Canada, Constitutional Act of 1982, Article 11(c); Chile, Article 19(7)(f); Colombia, Article 33; Costa Rica, Article 36; Cuba, Article 95(e); Dominica, Article 8(7); Dominican Republic, Article 69(6); Ecuador, Article 77(7) (b) and (c); El Salvador, Article 12; Grenada, Article 8(7); Guatemala, Article 8; Guyana, Article 144(7); Haiti, Article 46; Honduras, Article 88; Jamaica, Article 16(6); Mexico, Article 20(B)(II); Nicaragua, Article 34(7); Panama, Article 25; Paraguay, Article 18; Saint Kitts and Neves, Article 10(7); Saint Lucía, Article 8(7); Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Article 8(7); Trinidad and Tobago, Article 5(2)(d); United States, Fifth Amendment; Uruguay, Article 20 and Venezuela, Article 49.(5). 111 112 Cf. Supreme Court of Chile, - Rol: 2560-2019 of April 2, 2019; Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment C-102/05 and Judgment C-776 de 2001; Court of Justice of the Federal District and the Territories of Brazil; Constitutional Court of Peru, The right to remain silent forms part of the right not to be compelled to be a witness against oneself, Judgment 418/2021 EXP. No. 01198-2019-PHC/TC (March 30, 2021); Supreme Court of Costa Rica, Constitutional Chamber, Resolution Nº 06359–1993; Supreme Court of Costa Rica, Constitutional Chamber, Resolution No. 12244-2006. Considering paragraph III; Supreme Court of Costa Rica, Third Chamber, Resolution No. 01301–2004 and Constitutional Chamber, 556-91, of March 20, 1991 and Supreme Court of Mexico, Review of Amparo 624/2012. Cf. ECHR. Case of John Murray v. Great Britain, Judgment of February 8, 1996, Application No. 18731/91, para. 45 and Case of Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, Application No. 34720/97, para. 40. See, also, Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and Council, of March 9, 2016, by which they strengthen certain aspects in criminal proceedings regarding the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at trial. 113 114 United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Communication Nº 330/1988, Berry v. Jamaica, approved on July 4, 1994, para. 11.7; Communication Nº 1033/2001, Singarasa v. Sri Lanka, approved on July 21, 2004, para. 7.4 and Communication Nº 912/2000, Deolall v. Guyana, approved on November 1, 2004, para. 5.1. U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/81/D/1033/2001 (2004). 32