With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". V. While we recognize that “no man” in the federal provision is arguably broader than “the accused” in Pennsylvania’s section, we also observe that Pennsylvania’s protection against being forced “to give evidence” is potentially more extensive than the federal protection against being “a witness against himself.” Given the substantial similarity of the provisions, we do not find the textual differences dispositive. Moreover, “we are not bound to interpret the two provisions as if they were mirror images, even where the text is similar or identical.” Edmunds, 586 A.2d at 895-96. Indeed, we have previously found Section 9 to provide greater protection than the Fifth Amendment, despite the similar language. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Triplett, 462 Pa. 244, 341 A.2d 62 (1975) (plurality) (<HOLDING>). Other textual differences exist between the

A: holding that   1252d1 bars the consideration of bases for relief that were not raised below and of general issues that were not raised below but not of specific subsidiary legal arguments or arguments by extension that were not made below
B: holding that waiver by attorney was binding upon the accused when before the state introduced the evidence complained of on appeal counsel for the state in the presence of the accused and his counsel stated the agreement and the evidence of the witness was then read to the jury in the presence of the accused and his counsel without objection
C: holding that argument offered in defense of decision below had been waived when not raised below
D: holding in the lead opinion as described below that under the pennsylvania constitution an accused could not be impeached with his prior voluntary but suppressed statements abrogated by subsequent amendment
D.