Article 135: Prohibition on coercing a confession

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 2215/2548 (2005)

   A confession given voluntarily, not induced by any promise, threat, deception, or other unlawful means, may be used as evidence against the accused under Section 135.

   The accused confessed after relatives who visited advised him to admit the offense. The Court held this showed the confession was voluntary, not the product of inducement, threat, or deception, so it could be used as evidence under Section 135.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 924/2544 (2001)

   An officer telling the accused something untrue (that the victim was still alive) to learn the facts is not deception to induce a confession under Section 135, so the admission is not thereby inadmissible.

   At the investigation the accused admitted he was driving; the officer had told him the victim was not dead, which was untrue. The Court held this was done to learn the facts within the officer's lawful power and was not deception to induce a confession under Section 135, so the admission could be relied on.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 2140/2545 (2002)

   Section 135, read with Sections 134 and 226, is applied to test whether an admission was improperly induced; where the accused did not dispute the facts at trial and the record showed a confession after the charge, the admission was not shown to be unlawful.

   The accused argued the admission was taken before she was in the status of accused and without a proper warning, contrary to Sections 134, 135, and 226. The Court noted she did not contest the facts at trial and the record showed she confessed after the charge, so the admission was not established to be unlawful.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.