Swedish criminal law implement something that could be considered a partial application of that idea, but instead of outlawing interrogation, any admission of guilt is only to be considered as part of evidence in a case.
Thus when the courts do their work correctly, it's almost impossible to be convicted on your admissions alone, especially for more serious crimes.
There are however instances where this has still happened, indicating that maybe confeso of guilt should not be admissible as evidence at all, though material evidence found through interrogation probably should.
Regardless of the technical rules about how confessions should be treated, a jury will always overvalue a confession. The same applies to eyewitness testimony, which is basically useless but juries accept it as undeniable truth.
The game of prosecution is not "prove the accused is guilty". The game is "convince these random people that the accused is guilty". The later is a decent approximation of the former but I wish we had something better.
Thus when the courts do their work correctly, it's almost impossible to be convicted on your admissions alone, especially for more serious crimes.
There are however instances where this has still happened, indicating that maybe confeso of guilt should not be admissible as evidence at all, though material evidence found through interrogation probably should.