‘Neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 6 prevents a person from waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, entitlement to the guarantees of a fair trial. However, if it is to be effective for Convention purposes, a waiver of the right must be established in an unequivocal manner and be attended by minimum safeguards (…) A waiver of the right, once invoked, must not only be voluntary, but must also constitute a knowing and intelligent relinquishment of a right. Before an accused can be said to have implicitly, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (…). 21 When procedural rights are not effectively conveyed to the suspect, the ECtHR finds that the waiver is not effective, as it considers that the decision to waive the right was not taken on a properly informed basis. Consequently, the reliance on statements obtained in that context then means prejudice is caused to the fairness of the proceedings as a whole. The court has pointed to various factors, both objective and subjective, relating to the notification of rights which affect the validity of a waiver of the right of access to lawyer and to counsel:         The fact that rights were notified in a language other than the suspect’s native language, without the assistance of an interpreter.22 The fact of the notification being given only orally in the form of a standard caution (which barely serves the purpose of acquainting the suspect with the content of the rights);23 The ‘stressful situation’ and ‘quick sequence of the events’ leading to questioning of the suspect;24 A ‘certain confusion’ in the mind of the suspect at the point of questioning;25 The young age of the suspect;26 The suspect’s level of literacy;27 Familiarity with police encounters;28 and Drug dependency of the suspect.29 C. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE 1. Scope of the notification obligation The Directive requires information on rights to be notified to persons who are suspected or accused in criminal proceedings. The point it selects (as do the other Directives) to define its scope of application is, however, somewhat problematic. Article 2(1) provides: 21 Case of Saman v. Turkey App. no 35292/05 (Judgment of 5 April 2011). Saman v. Turkey, cited above note 21, paragraph 35. 23 Panovits v. Cyprus, cited above note 10, paragraph 74. 24 Zaichenko v. Russia, cited above note 10, paragraph 55. 25 Stojkovic v. France and Belgium, cited above note 10, paragraph 53. 26 Panovits v. Cyprus, cited above note 10, paragraph 67. 27 Case of Kaciu and Kotorri v. Albania, Apps. nos. 33192/07 and 33194/07 (Judgment of 25 June 2013), para. 120. 28 Pishchalnikov v. Russia, cited above note 10, paragraph 80. 29 Case of Plonka v. Poland, App. no. 20310/02 (Judgment of 31 March 2009), para. 38. 22 15