Review: right against self-incrimination

[Gaspo]

Clause 6 of the Bill of Rights says:

6. No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by the Constitution or the Legal Code. No Nation shall be subjected to being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. No Nation shall ever be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against itself.

This is helpful but there is some ambiguity which Eluvatar & r3nnaissanc3r need disambiguated with regards to the highlighted part.

Suppose that in TNP v Alice, Bob is asked a question relevant to TNP v Alice the answer to which could incriminate Bob.

Firstly, does Bob have a right to decline to answer such a question based on clause six?

Secondly, would refusal to answer such a question constitute evidence against Bob?

The answer to these questions shall determine whether Eluvatar & r3nnaissanc3r will call (a) certain witness(es) as part of their defense strategy. Without such clarity, Eluvatar & r3naissanc3r cannot ethically compel them to testify.

I suppose we ought to get to work on this. General legal principles hold that the answer to his questions are "Yes" and "No". The whole point of a right against self-incrimination is undermined if utilization of that right constitutes roughly equivalent evidence of guilt, as would have been produced if the question had been answered. The way in which the law is worded suggests that this right would extend to any criminal trial, and covers any nation.

If the prosecution wishes to use such witnesses for its own purposes, or wishes to compel an answer, there's nothing in the current law which bars the Office of the Attorney General from offering Immunity in exchange for testimony. We could note that in an opinion, if we wish, but I'm inclined not to assist the prosecutors too much - it's their job to know how to do their job as best they can.

Tl;dr Yes, you can decline to answer, and no, the fact that you declined cannot be used against you, in any trial, ever. Thoughts?