requirement of the Directive: information should be provided in ‘simple and accessible language, taking into account any particular needs of vulnerable suspects or vulnerable accused persons’. The Directive also places a clear emphasis on providing the document as a separate item, disassembled from the bureaucracy of other documentation, such as written notification of suspicion (as showed by the indicative model in the Annex to the Directive, which is a standalone document). The requirement for the suspect to have ‘an opportunity to read’ the document means the requirement cannot be satisfied by recording in writing oral notification of rights immediately prior to questioning. We suggest you look for both objective factors (e.g. the drafting of the Letter of Rights) and subjective factors (such as the state of mind or the circumstances). Objective factors would, of course, relate to the manner in which the information is conveyed. Based on the conversations with members of the LEAP network we would recommend the following:  How was the information conveyed?  Was the letter provided?  Check the Letter of Rights, which should be in your detained client’s possession, and compare it with the indicative model in the Directive;  Compare the letter with other models and identify the ways in which you believe it is unclear;  Compare the letter with the language of the criminal procedure code and establish whether and establish whether it is explaining or simply reproducing it;  Does the letter use legal terminology (‘harm your defence’, ‘prejudice your interests’) which is difficult for most suspects to understand?  Is the Letter of Rights provided as a separate item with a special status or is it simply joined together with the notification of suspicion, without due prominence being given to the rights it contains? In addition to objective points, you should also consider the specific circumstances in which the suspect found himself when notified, including any vulnerabilities arising from this. In searching for relevant parameters, since the Directive (and the Charter) are to be read in light of the ECHR, it may be helpful to consider some of the factors considered important by the ECtHR when determining whether suspects have knowingly waived their (see the case-law above p. 15). ii. Timing of the notification You should also consider the timing of the notification of rights, bearing in mind the requirement of the Directive for the suspect to have the opportunity to read the Letter of Rights (which to have any use would mean before initial police questioning).  Take instructions from the client:  When was the information conveyed?  Were comments made by the police as to the consequences of exercising the rights mentioned in the letter or in relation to the significance of the document?  Was the suspect advised of procedural rights in due time to consider exercising them before being questioned?  Was the suspect given an opportunity to read the Letter? 20