Article 6 ECHR, and yet escape the obligations imposed upon them in order to safeguard the rights of those same people. b. Fair Trials’ view on the scope of the Directive Accordingly, we would suggest that this is just a case of cautious legislative drafting and that a person ‘charged’ within the meaning of Article 6 ECHR enjoys rights under the Directive. A person becomes a ‘suspect or accused person’ such as to enjoy rights under the Directive not simply when national law assigns them the status of suspect, but whenever their interests are ‘substantially affected’ and in particular ‘when the domestic authorities have plausible reasons for suspecting that person’s involvement in a criminal offence’. 2. Establishing the violation In principle, your approach here is going to be linked to confessions or other evidence supplied by the client before they were officially placed under suspicion. This could be in a multitude of different procedures (among those mentioned to us are roadside stops, informal questioning at the police station, formal questioning as a witness, and provision of evidence under compulsory powers). As soon as you detect that this evidence is having an impact upon the procedure (e.g. justifying further investigation, detention, or liable to be used for conviction), you should take action.  Identify statements or other evidence given outside the context of formal investigation of the client as a suspect.  Establish whether this information was given completely voluntarily or whether it has been obtained with a view to being used against your client. Once you have identified the problematic statement / evidence, you should find a basis to say that this was taken in breach of the Directive due to the failure to notify the individual of their rights under Article 3 and/or of the accusations under Article 6 of the Directive. Effectively, you want to identify, matters which suggest that the person was, at the stage the evidence was acquired, already under suspicion. It would seem logical to look for things arising in the ECtHR case-law:  Inspect the case file and identify the objective elements that meant that the client was under suspicion at the time the act in question was carried out, e.g.:  Evidence received from other witnesses / suspects, in the possession of the investigative authorities, which inculpated the client; and  The procedure followed (e.g. forcible procedure for turning over documents) was made as a step in a criminal investigation against the client. On this basis, you then want to establish whether the Directive was complied with at the time, and in particular whether the client was given information about the accusation and their rights in accordance with Articles 3 and 6 of the Directive.  Establish whether the Directive was complied with at the time the relevant step was taken:  If the step was one taken in writing (e.g. a notice requiring the provision of information or documents), inspect this and see whether it contained any information about procedural rights or the accusation; 46