just European

• French Penal Code Article 434-4: “Est puni de trois ans d’emprisonnement et de 45 000 euros d’amende le fait, en vue de faire obstacle à la manifestation de la vérité : 1° De modifier l’état des lieux d’un crime ou d’un délit soit par l’altération, la falsification ou l’effacement des traces ou indices, soit par l’apport, le déplacement ou la suppression d’objets quelconques ; 2° De détruire, soustraire, receler ou altérer un document public ou privé ou un objet de nature à faciliter la découverte d’un crime ou d’un délit, la recherche des preuves ou la condamnation des coupables.”
• The UK covers this as “perverting the course of justice”.
• Maybe not surprisingly, then, Ireland covers this too: "(a) knows or suspects that an investigation by the Garda Síochána into an offence under this Act is being or is likely to be carried out, and “(b) falsifies, conceals, destroys or otherwise disposes of a document or record which he or she knows or suspects is or would be relevant to the investigation or causes or permits its falsification, concealment, destruction or disposal,”.
• Austria StGB Section 229: “(1)Absatz einsWer eine Urkunde, über die er nicht oder nicht allein verfügen darf, vernichtet, beschädigt oder unterdrückt, ist, wenn er mit dem Vorsatz handelt, zu verhindern, daß sie im Rechtsverkehr zum Beweis eines Rechtes, eines Rechtsverhältnisses oder einer Tatsache gebraucht werde, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe bis zu 720 Tagessätzen zu bestrafen.” (Edit: And in case you want to grasp at straws with “right of disposal”, Section 111 of the StPO covers seizure laws. Germany covers its obligation to comply with seizure under StPO 95, but I don’t know specifically about how spoliation of records is treated.)

I have no idea why you assume this is some US-specific concept. Maybe some European countries don’t have this (I’m not certain, this was based on a very cursory, two-minute DDG search), but there definitely are ones that do.

Edit: And dude, come on: “In this case it’s just as likely that he accidentally gave the duress code instead of his actual pin” Literally nobody’s going to buy the “oopsies, I gave you the ‘nuke my phone’ code instead of the regular one I use multiple times per day by mistake!” defense. Trying to argue that would be a recipe to lose, as you’d lose all credibility with a judge/jury when you have actual credible, legal arguments you can make. You can just say things; that doesn’t make them true or reasonable. “Your honor, a cosmic bit flip destroyed my phone!”