Neither the reasons nor the history behind the right to silence are entirely clear. The Latin brocard "nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare" ('no man is bound to accuse himself') became a rallying cry for religious and political dissidents who were prosecuted in the Star Chamber and High Commission of 16th-century England. People coming before these tribunals were forced to make the "ex officio" oath by which they swore to truthfully answer the questions to be put before them without knowing of what they were being accused. This created what has been termed the cruel trilemma whereby these accused were forced to choose between committing the mortal sin of perjury (if they lied under oath to protect themselves), harsh punishment for contempt of court (if they refused to answer), or betraying their "natural" duty of self-preservation (if they told the truth to honour their oath). Sir Edward Coke's challenge to the ecclesiastical courts and their "ex officio" oath is seen as the origin of the right to silence. With his decision that common law courts could issue writs of prohibition against such oaths and his arguments that such oaths were contrary to the common law (as found in his "Reports" and "Institutes"), Coke "dealt the crucial blow to the oath "ex officio" and to the High Commission".