‘This Directive applies from the time persons are made aware by the competent authorities of a Member State that they are suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence until the conclusion of the proceedings, which is understood to mean the final determination of the question whether the suspect or accused person has committed the criminal offence, including, where applicable, sentencing and the resolution of any appeal’ (emphasis added). Also relevant are the Recitals 19 and 28 of the Directive, providing: ‘(19) (…) the information [about procedural rights] should be provided promptly in the course of the proceedings and at the latest before the first official interview of the suspect or accused person by the police or by another competent authority. (28) (…) The information provided to suspects or accused persons about the criminal act they are suspected or accused of having committed should be given promptly, and at the latest before their first official interview by the police or another competent authority (…) It must also be noted that each of the substantive provisions of the Directive imposes obligations on the Member States in favour of ‘suspects or accused persons’ (see Articles 3(1), 4(1), 6(1) and 7(2)). This term is not otherwise defined. D. USING THE DIRECTIVE IN PRACTICE 1. Preliminary point: the apparent limited scope of the Directive a. The wording of Article 2 It is immediately apparent from the wording of the Directive that it seeks to define the scope of the protections by reference to the point when a person is ‘made aware’ that they are suspected or accused. This is particularly the case in light of the references in the recitals to the ‘first official interview’; though these terms are not otherwise defined, they seem to suggest that procedural rights and accusations need only be notified in advance of formal questioning. However, the scope provision of the Directive, which does not refer to national law, must be regarded as having an autonomous meaning. And provisions of the Directives must be interpreted in line with the ECHR, as a minimum. The Article 6 guarantee, as we have seen, apply from the point when a person’s interests are ‘substantially affected’ and this effectively means that, in ECHR terms, a person is ‘charged’ ‘when the domestic authorities have plausible reasons for suspecting that person’s involvement in a criminal offence’.70 A narrow reading of the Directive would lead to the situation where people who, in ECHR terms, are ‘charged in criminal proceedings’ do not have protection under the Directive – this despite the fact that the Directive aims to build upon Article 6 ECHR. The Directive would be deprived of its useful effect if Member States were able to institute proceedings against people, within the meaning of 70 Case of Bandeltov v. Ukraine, cited above note 9, paragraph 56. 45