The accused’s right to remain silent is one of the fundamental safeguards associated with the right of defence and the presumption of innocence. An accused person may not be compelled to provide evidence against themselves or forced to confess to the commission of the alleged crime. This right assumes particular importance during the preliminary investigation, as this stage establishes the main features of the criminal proceedings and involves the collection of evidence that may subsequently be relied upon by the court. The right of the accused to remain silent means refraining from answering questions addressed to them by the investigating authority, without such refusal, in itself, being considered evidence of their commission of the crime. Silence differs from denial: denial constitutes an affirmative response to the accusation, whereas silence represents abstention from providing statements or information that could be used against the accused. Accordingly, respecting the accused’s silence is an expression of respect for human dignity and a safeguard of the accused’s freedom of choice in conducting their defence. Under Iraqi legislation, the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 23 of 1971 provides accused persons with a range of safeguards during the investigation. It requires the investigating judge or investigator to record the accused’s statements and inform them of the charge brought against them. The law also establishes rules governing interrogation and prohibits the use of unlawful methods to obtain confessions. These provisions are consistent with the constitutional principle that an accused person must not be compelled to testify against themselves, as well as the principle that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in accordance with the law. The right to remain silent is particularly significant before the investigating judge. The judge should not regard the accused’s refusal to answer questions as independent evidence of guilt; rather, the judge must assess the available evidence in the case in accordance with the law. The accused is not required to prove their innocence, as the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Consequently, exercising the right to remain silent must not become a means of exerting pressure on the accused or an automatic presumption against them. The right to silence is also closely connected with the prohibition of coercion, torture, and ill-treatment. A confession has no legal evidentiary value if it is obtained through physical or psychological coercion or other unlawful methods, because evidence obtained through means that undermine the accused’s free will loses the foundation that justifies relying upon it. Therefore, the role of the investigating judge is not limited to collecting evidence; it also encompasses ensuring the legality of investigative procedures and protecting rights and freedoms throughout the investigation. Nevertheless, the accused’s exercise of the right to remain silent does not mean that investigative proceedings must be suspended or that the competent authority is prevented from taking the lawful measures necessary to establish the truth. The investigating judge may continue the investigation and collect evidence from various sources, hear witness testimony, conduct inspections and expert examinations, and undertake other procedures permitted by law, without treating the accused’s silence as a substitute for evidence. The accused’s right to remain silent before the investigating judge constitutes a fundamental safeguard of a fair trial and an important means of protecting freedom of will and the presumption of innocence. This right becomes effective when the accused can freely choose their defence strategy without coercion and when the investigating authority is committed to establishing the truth through lawful evidence rather than forcing the accused to provide evidence against themselves. Lecturer Dr. Ali Hamza Nimrod Al-Shafi’i College of Law – Al-Mustaqbal University