The legislation, along with the case law that interpreted it, balances the desire to reach the truth and fight criminality, with minimal violation of a person's right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself.
4.2.1.c. Applicability of the Right to Remain Silent and the Right from Self-Criminalization to Corporations
As we have seen, different legal systems are based on different conceptual bases, both for imposing criminal liability on corporations, for corporate rights in general, for the right to remain silent and for the right to self-incrimination in particular. As I mentioned, there are places where this is the same right, and in most cases it is part of the right to a fair trial. A summary prepared by the OECD regarding the International Convention for the Prevention of Bribery shows that while there are differences on the question of imposing criminal liability on corporations, there is a great deal of variation on these questions of the application of these protections to corporations, and the explanations vary (see: A corporate right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination? (OECD 25.11.2016), available at: http://oecdinsights.org/2016/11/25/a-corporate-right-to-silence-and-privilege-against-self-incrimination/(.
In the United States, a corporation does not have the right to self-incrimination (which includes the right to remain silent). This rule was established in the Hale case, in 1906, when the court explained it on the clear differences between a corporation and a human being, and on the "artificiality" of the corporation that derives its very existence from the law: is a creature of the state' ... with powers limited by the state, ibid., at p. 74). Therefore, the court ruled, since a company derives its very existence from the law, the state is entitled to examine and investigate the activities of those incorporated bodies in order to ensure that they are acting in accordance with the law. A second argument given for denying the protection against self-incrimination in the United States was that this constitutional protection was given to human beings to protect individual freedoms and to avoid unreasonable pressure on suspects and defendants, an argument that does not stand up when it comes to a corporation. Another reason of the court relates to the distinction between witnesses and the accused. The right to self-incrimination, as opposed to the right to remain silent, is granted to every witness in every proceeding. The court insists that granting the corporation the right against self-incrimination will lead to the corporation claiming privilege in every proceeding against officers, and vice versa (the immunity there is also denied to officers of the corporation when they testify about what they did as organs) and it will never be possible to convict neither the corporation nor the officers. The court ruled (ibid., at p. 70) that: