This article explores the complex legal and ethical tension between prosecuting false testimony and safeguarding fundamental individual rights within contemporary criminal justice systems. False testimony, defined as deliberately providing untruthful statements under oath, undermines the integrity of the judiciary, disrupts the fact-finding process, and threatens public trust in legal institutions. Simultaneously, aggressive prosecution of false testimony may infringe upon individual guarantees such as the right to silence, the presumption of innocence, and the protection against self-incrimination. The study examines legal frameworks from both continental and common law traditions to evaluate the thresholds of criminal liability for false testimony, the burden of proof required, and procedural safeguards afforded to defendants. Special attention is given to the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence, which emphasizes proportionality, procedural fairness, and the necessity of balancing collective and individual interests. Furthermore, the article analyzes the psychological, social, and structural factors that may lead individuals to offer false testimony, including coercion, fear of retaliation, or cognitive distortions. Through a comparative-analytical methodology, the paper concludes that criminal law must preserve the authority of truth in judicial proceedings without disregarding the broader principles of due process and human dignity. Effective legal responses to false testimony must thus integrate preventive, punitive, and protective measures while maintaining a fair equilibrium between truth-seeking and individual autonomy.
Mihai Ştefănoaia (2025) studied this question.