Article 63 of the Constitution of Ukraine. Is it permissible not to answer during interrogation?

Article 63 of the Constitution of Ukraine guarantees a key right: every individual bears no responsibility for refusing to give testimony or explanations about themselves, family members, or close relatives. This rule has become the cornerstone of legal defense strategies in all types of criminal and administrative proceedings—since the Constitution was adopted, this provision has remained not only relevant but also practically significant in the context of interrogations.

The Constitutional Meaning of the Right Against Self-Incrimination
The Constitution of Ukraine (Art. 63) establishes that a person bears no legal responsibility for refusing to give testimony regarding their own actions or deeds as well as those of their close relatives. The law also defines the circle of close persons. This right is an inalienable element of the principle of freedom from compelled self-incrimination, recognized by global legal practice as a standard of fair justice. Its protection reduces the risk of convictions based on coercion, psychological pressure, or the use of statements obtained under external influence.

The Right to Remain Silent: Structure, Requirements, Application
The right to remain silent or the so-called “presumption of innocence” includes several components:
— the right not to answer questions at all;
— the right not to testify against oneself or family members, regardless of procedural status (as a witness, suspect, or accused);
— the right to be informed of these possibilities prior to interrogation by an investigator, prosecutor, or court.

Law enforcement officers are obliged to clearly and understandably explain this right before the start of questioning. Only after a person agrees to give testimony can such statements be used as evidence in the subsequent case proceedings.

Interrogation in Criminal Proceedings: Mechanisms and Guarantees
The interrogation of a witness or suspect is a standard tool of pre-trial investigation. However, the key feature is that each person may refuse to answer questions that directly or indirectly could incriminate them. This guarantee is designed, in particular, to prevent pressure or manipulation by an investigator.

Additionally, if a witness refuses to give testimony in cases where the data concerns them personally (self-incrimination), no form of prosecution or responsibility may arise.

Practical Limits: What Constitutes “Testimony Against Oneself”
According to the essence of Article 63 and current legal practice, “testimony against oneself” is any information that can be used as evidence in proceedings against the person. This norm applies to suspects and the accused, as well as to witnesses if the questions concern their personal involvement in events.

At the same time, experts and legal practitioners note that Article 63 of the Constitution is interpreted as the ability not to answer questions that risk self-incrimination but does not release a person from answering questions unrelated to personal involvement in a crime, provided the interests of close relatives are not affected.

Exceptions, Limitations, Risks
According to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and criminal legislation, refusal to testify under Article 63 cannot be regarded as intentional obstruction of investigation or court. However, if a person unjustifiably ignores all questions not related to themselves or relatives, a legal conflict arises—the investigator may file a motion for appropriate investigative actions but still may not compel self-incrimination. At the same time, in the case of a false or fictitious refusal or giving false testimony, the law provides liability for inaccuracy (Articles 384, 385 of the Criminal Code), but not for refusal under Article 63.

Procedural Aspects: How to Exercise the Right
Before any interrogation, lawyers always recommend:
— notifying the investigator or court in advance of the intention to exercise the right not to answer;
— requesting to include in the protocol an explicit statement of the reason for refusal (“invoking Article 63 of the Constitution of Ukraine”);
— carefully evaluating the nature of the questions: if they involve participation in an event, even as potential awareness, it is allowed not to answer;
— avoiding categorical statements if an answer could be used as evidence in another investigation;
— defending the right to silence even under pressure (with the involvement of a lawyer).

Refusal During Interrogation: Consequences
There are no consequences—neither administrative nor criminal—for a person (suspect, accused, or witness) who refused to testify under Article 63 of the Constitution. Use of this provision makes the imposition of fines, detention, or other punitive measures impossible. Any statements regarding “liability” are unlawful and must be viewed as inadmissible influence on the person.

Use of “Rule 63” in Court Practice
Ukrainian courts consistently emphasize the unconditional guarantee of Article 63 of the Constitution, especially regarding the right to remain silent at any stage of criminal proceedings—from pre-trial investigation to court consideration. Even if a person has already provided some testimony, he or she is entitled to subsequently exercise the right not to give additional explanations on certain questions or new circumstances.

Practical Considerations: When to “Use Silence”
Using Article 63 is recommended:
— when questions concern potentially self-incriminating information;
— to protect the interests of close relatives in proceedings;
— if there is a risk of ambiguous interpretation of answers;
— in case of psychological pressure or violation of interrogation procedure.

Lawyers emphasize: remaining silent is not a sign of aggression or avoidance of justice but the exercise of a constitutional right that helps maintain legal protection and avoid erroneous or forced investigation circumstances.

Conclusion
Article 63 of the Constitution of Ukraine provides every individual with a powerful tool of protection during interrogation. Refusing to answer questions that could be harmful to oneself or family members is a right, not an obligation. Its exercise requires awareness, attentiveness, and legal support. Respect for Article 63 is a guarantee against unlawful investigative methods and the foundation of fair justice.

Author: Ihor Yasko, Managing Partner, WINNER Legal Company, PhD in Law.