This doesn't answer the parent's point. Most cases turn on the facts, even in civil law systems. Defendants still get locked up when judges don't believe them,

This doesn't answer the parent's point. Most cases turn on the facts, even in civil law systems. Defendants still get locked up when judges don't believe them, and judges can still get the facts wrong. Most U.S. federal law is codified, including the contempt provision that applied here (18 U.S. Code § 401). Codification does not remove the need for courts to resolve ambiguities. The constitutional right in this case is a good example: there is no explicit privilege against self-incrimination in the European Convention on Human Rights, yet the European Court of Human Rights has found that Europeans do have this right, and has explained its scope by 'reinterpreting the law on a case by case basis' [1]. [1] http://cardozolawreview.com/Joomla1.5/content/30-3/ASHWORTH.30-3.pdf http://cardozolawreview.com/Joomla1.5/content/30-3/ASHWORTH....