Purpose of the confrontation
It may occur between suspect and complainant, two suspects, or others. The investigator confronts each with the other's allegations, examines disputed details, and observes whether responses strengthen or weaken an account.
It is not a private conversation
Statements are made before investigators and recorded. Silence, an outburst, threat, effort to coordinate, or supposed off-record remark may matter. Address the investigator and place the position on record rather than conducting a personal argument.
Maintain the account
Review earlier statements beforehand. Do not change an account because the other person speaks confidently or adds details. If new information appears, pause, think, and answer accurately rather than improvise.
Responding to provocation
The other person may shout, insult, or make a difficult allegation. A measured response is not an admission. The objective is to state a clear position without conduct that harms the defense or creates a new suspicion.
Reviewing the record
At the end, review how statements were recorded and request correction. Unusual pressure, a prevented answer, or an omitted remark should be raised promptly and reported to counsel.
Concluding point
For the defense, a successful confrontation is measured by consistency, avoidance of emotional traps, and a clear record of disputed issues.
Principal legal sources
- Criminal Procedure (Interrogation of Suspects) Law, 5762-2002.
- Evidence Ordinance [New Version], 5731-1971.