same offence, carrying a penalty of ten to fifteen years and requiring mandatory representation. There is no decision of the ECtHR at this stage, but this clearly shows the issue which is raised by the under-classification of an offence at the point of questioning. It may entail the non-application of procedural protections available under national law for more serious offences and/or induce cooperation by the suspect on the expectation of a lower charge etc. Fair Trials has intervened in this case to emphasise the importance of effective notification of procedural rights and the accusation to ensure sensible decision-making by the accused. We encourage you to see Article 6(1) as holding the authorities to the provision of full information and avoid abuse of these possibilities. c. Failure to specify factual allegations sufficiently Practitioners also report that, in some cases, little factual information will be given beyond the bare legal head of accusation (e.g. fraud committed against a person in a certain time, without details as to the alleged wrongdoing), perhaps in order not to reveal the detail of ongoing investigations. This makes it difficult for the suspect to cooperate and offer exculpatory evidence, which may be helpful to the police. In addition, it makes it difficult to offer a response to a request for detention. Practitioners in Spain have, in particular, lamented the failure to provide more than bare allegations, which make it impossible to have a serious discussion about the strength of the case at the pre-trial detention instance. The pre-trial court, legally speaking, has jurisdiction only to review the grounds of detention, not the strength of the case, so there is a vacuum of judicial review of the strength of the case until later. 2. Seek information at the point of questioning and create a record We encourage you to refer to the Directive at the point of questioning. Refer back to your preparatory work to see if national legislation governing the provision of information to suspects has been amended to implement the Directive. This has been the case in France, for instance, where an additional requirement for legal classification of the offence at the point of questioning has been instituted. Make your case to the relevant pre-trial institution (in most cases, the police):  Demand on the basis of the Directive that the suspect is informed in detail of the alleged crime, both in respect of its legal classification and its facts.  In respect of the facts, explain how the failure to provide detail is (a) depriving the suspect of an opportunity to comment usefully on the lawfulness of the arrest or provide exculpatory evidence and (b) forcing the suspect to make decisions as to whether to exercise his right to silence on an ill-informed basis.  Ask for the specific criminal offence which the police / prosecution intend to charge, and any other alternatives which they are contemplating. Make it clear that the advice you are giving to the client is based upon a certain understanding of which offence is going to be charged.  Consider carefully if the client giving a statement in the context of a less serious offence might later incriminate your client of a more serious one. If in doubt, advise silence until the exact content of the accusation is known. Weigh this risk carefully against the risk of your client being detained.  Seek access to the evidence which is available at this stage, in accordance with Article 7(1) as we interpret it (see Part III). If you get access, this will help you to 29