What legal concept did Miranda's case primarily address regarding the treatment of suspects during interrogations?

The correct answer, focusing on self-incrimination rights, points directly to the critical issue raised in Miranda v. Arizona. This case established that individuals in police custody must be informed of their rights, particularly the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. The Supreme Court ruled that without being informed of these rights, any statement made during an interrogation could not be used against the suspect in court. This is a fundamental protection against self-incrimination, rooted in the Fifth Amendment.

The ruling aimed to ensure that individuals are not compelled to provide incriminating evidence against themselves, reinforcing the principle that a suspect should be fully aware of their legal rights to make informed decisions during police interrogations. The case is pivotal in safeguarding individual freedoms by preventing coercive interrogation practices that could lead to false confessions or unreliable statements.

The other concepts mentioned, such as double jeopardy, search and seizure, and chain of custody, relate to different legal protections and procedures but do not specifically address the rights of suspects during interrogations in the way that the issue of self-incrimination does.