O princípio da não autoincriminação (ou princípio nemo tenetur se detegere) constitui não só um dos mais importantes princípios aplicáveis no contexto da produção probatória, mas também um dos princípios fundamentais do processo penal. O seu estudo está diretamente relacionado à tensão existente entre o interesse público na persecução penal e o interesse do indivíduo, no que diz respeito à observância das garantias fundamentais. A evolução, estrutura, alcance e as restrições ao referido princípio serão analisadas sob o enfoque do direito comparado, exercício este que nos propomos a ensaiar privilegiando uma referência abreviada à experiência americana. Após uma breve incursão sobre os sistemas processuais penais, a busca da verdade e os poderes do juiz temas intimamente relacionados ao assunto principal trataremos, sem a pretensão de esgotar o assunto, da dimensão assumida pelo privilege against self-incrimination no direito processual penal estadunidense e, posteriormente, do alcance do princípio da não autoincriminação no ordenamento brasileiro. Tendo em vista a matriz costumeira do Direito norte-americano, as linhas sobre o privilege serão traçadas, sobretudo, por meio da análise dos julgados da Suprema Corte. No ordenamento pátrio, o direito de não produzir prova contra si mesmo será tratado à luz dos entendimentos doutrinários distintos. O enfoque, em ambos os ordenamentos, dar-se-á também sob o prisma do direito ao silêncio, interrogatório, provas que dependem da colaboração do acusado, princípio da proporcionalidade e consequências advindas da violação ao princípio. / The privilege against self-incrimination (also known as nemo tenetur se detegere) is not only one of the most important rights in the context of evidence, but also a fundamental principle of criminal procedure. The study is intimately related to the tension between publics interest in punishment, in one side, and the preservation of a persons rights, on the other. The evolution, structure, scope and restrictions to this principle will be analyzed from the standpoint of comparative law, which we intend to accomplish by making a brief reference to the American experience. After a short foray concerning to the systems of criminal procedure, search for the truth and the powers of the judge topics that are closely related to the main subject we will discourse, without pretending to exhaust the theme, about the extent assumed by the privilege against self-incrimination in USAs criminal procedure and, subsequently, the dimension of the privilege against self-incrimination in brazilians criminal process. Given the peculiarities of the American Legal system, based on the concept of precedence, the lines on the privilege will be drawn, especially, through the analysis of U. S. Supreme Court cases. When it comes to brazilians procedure, the right against self-incrimination will be treated throughout the different doctrinal understandings. The focus in both jurisdictions will also be developed through the perspective of the right to remain silent, cross-examination, evidences that depends on the defendants cooperation, the principle of proportionality and the consequences resulting from the violation of the privilege.

La notion d’inopérance des moyens a acquis, en particulier depuis ces dernières années, une place majeure dans le contentieux administratif français. Le juge l’utilise fréquemment dans ses décisions et les membres de la doctrine ne manquent pas de l’employer dans leurs travaux. Pourtant, aucune étude d’ampleur, consacrée spécifiquement à la notion et appréhendant l’ensemble de ses aspects, n’a, jusqu’à présent, été entreprise. Ceci explique qu’elle soit, aujourd’hui, mal connue et apparaisse, au premier abord, difficile à cerner. Les manifestations de ce caractère insaisissable sont multiples : ainsi, par exemple, l’inopérance se voit souvent confondue avec l’irrecevabilité ; de même, les raisons pour lesquelles le juge constate, dans telle ou telle espèce, l’inopérance du moyen invoqué, sont mal identifiées ; de même encore,lorsqu’ils ne sont pas tout simplement niés, les effets procéduraux de l’inopérance sont largement sous-estimés. À partir d’un examen approfondi de la jurisprudence et des pratiques adoptées par la juridiction administrative, l’étude a eu pour objet de procéder à une clarification de la notion d’inopérance des moyens. Il s’est agi, d’abord, d’en délimiter les contours et d’en déterminer le contenu, en proposant une définition de l’inopérance. Il s’est agi, ensuite, de présenter, de façon raisonnée, les facteurs susceptibles d’entraîner le caractère inopérant des moyens, en proposant une systématisation des causes de l’inopérance. Il s’est agi, enfin, d’expliciter les éléments du régime juridique de l’inopérance et la façon dont le juge les met en oeuvre, en proposant une analyse détaillée de ses conséquences. / The notion itself of the ineffectiveness of pleas has acquired, especially in recent years, a major place in the French administrative judicial procedure. The judge often refers to it in his/her decisions and the members of the legal doctrine use it in their own work. However, no significant study, devoted entirely to this concept and focusing on all its aspects, has so farbeen undertaken. This is why today this notion is little known and appears at first difficult to apprehend. Manifestations of this elusive aspect are numerous : for instance, theineffectiveness of pleas is often mistaken with the inadmissibility of pleas ; in the same way,the reasons why a judge declares, in a given case, that a plea is ineffective are poorly identified; similarly, when they are not just denied, the procedural effects of ineffective pleas are seriously underestimated. From an in-depth examination of case law and practices adopted by administrative courts, the purpose of this thesis is to clarify the notion of the ineffectiveness of pleas. First, in order to set the contours and determine the content of this concept, we will propose a definition of the ineffectiveness of pleas. Then, to describe and present, in a reasoned manner, the factors that might cause a plea to be declared ineffective, we will propose a systematization of the causes of ineffectiveness of pleas. Finally, to make explicitthe elements of the legal regime of ineffectiveness of pleas and how the judge implements them, we will provide a detailed analysis of its consequences.

[pt] O princípio nemo tenetur se detegere, em seu duplo aspecto vedação à autoincriminação e direito ao silêncio, é uma conquista civilizatória das sociedades democráticas. A importância do princípio, muitas vezes não explicitada nas discussões sobre a constitucionalidade dos institutos e leis, é de tamanha monta que, conjuntamente com o princípio da presunção de inocência, forma a base axiológica de todo o sistema processual penal democrático. Contudo, o poder Estatal, diante do apelo popular e em resposta aos altos índices de criminalidade e episódios notórios de corrupção no Brasil tem, nos últimos tempos, a partir de uma continuidade cronológica de legislações, relativizado ou erodido os sustentáculos do princípio nemo tenetur se detegere. Tal postura Estatal consubstancia o que na criminologia se denomina de direito penal do inimigo, que servirá de substrato teórico para explicar o porquê do fenômeno de hipercriminalização e recrudescimento Estatal. A pesquisa visa, portanto, reafirmar o valor do nemo tenetur se detegere, acentuando os casos em que está a sofrer ataques e oferecer, a partir de pesquisa doutrinária e da análise jurisprudencial nacional e estrangeira, possíveis salvaguardas ao princípio com vistas a garantir que o processo penal brasileiro continue a respeitar os direitos individuais inerentes a uma ordem constitucional de fato e não meramente de direito. / [en] The principle nemo tenetur se detegere, in its double aspect privilege against self-incrimination and right to silence, is a civilizational conquest of democratic societies. The importance of this principle, which is often not made explicit in the discussions on the constitutionality of institutes and laws, is so significant that, together with the principle of presumption of innocence, forms the axiological basis of the entire democratic criminal procedural system. However, the State power, in the face of popular appeal and in response to high crime rates and notorious episodes of corruption in Brazil, has recently, from a chronological continuity of legislation, relativized or eroded the pillars of the nemo tenetur se detegere principle. This state posture consubstantiates what in criminology is called the criminal law of the enemy, which will serve as a theoretical substrate to explain the phenomenon of hypercriminalization and State recrudescence. The aim of the research is to reaffirm the value of the nemo tenetur, to highlight the cases in which it is under attack and to offer possible safeguards to the principle, based on jurisprudencial research and national and foreign case analysis, with a view to ensuring that the Brazilian criminal proceeding continues to respect the individual rights inherent in a constitutional order of fact and not merely law.