Counter-Witnessing Techniques

So systematic was the Stalinist domination of history that they sent appointed "Witnesses" on police raids. It was a job, a specific role, like a freelance gig. The two witnesses assigned to the first raid on M. and Nadezdha fell asleep on-site, but would still act as if they were providing the accused with their due legal protection. Nadezdha often frames her book as a thing to counter the official story, which makes it an extremely rare thing for its time. The notions of "writer" "witness" and "reasons" got so upheaved in such a short time it's remarkable that anybody stayed oriented the way Nadezdha, Akhmatova, and the others. Still, they found themselves in the position of being better off destroying parts of their own narratives, like M.'s poem about the Canal.

Nadezdha says something about enduring an environment of total torment and what a witness can do in those situations:

Later  I often wondered whether it is right to scream when you are being beaten and trampled underfoot. Isn't it better to face one's tormentors in a stance of satanic pride, answering them with contemptuous silence? I decided that it is better to scream. This pitiful sound, which sometimes, goodness knows how, reaches into the remotest prison cell, is a concentrated expression of the last vestige of human dignity. It is a man's way of leaving a trace, of telling people how he lived and died. By his screams he asserts his right to live, sends a message to the outside world demanding help and calling for resistance. If nothing else is left, one must scream. Silence is the real crime against humanity. (43)

But I wonder if she means to pit Screaming vs. Silence in the moment of torment, or afterwards if you survive, Testifying At All vs. Letting The Past Be The Past. She herself says she came to this decision "Later." Is there a grace period before we label silence a crime?