iii. Dissuasive notification You should also look for signs that the notification was dissuasive (e.g. through negative language suggesting that exercising the right to silence is uncooperative), such that the decisions cannot be said to have been taken freely.  Was there a ‘dissuasive notification’  Identify the manner in which the notification was dissuasive. In the case of a Letter of Rights, this can be done from the text.  Assess the extent to which this, combined with the pressure of the circumstances, can objectively be said to create a dissuasive effect. c. Document the violation If you were not present at the point of questioning, you face a challenge: how do you establish key things like when and how the information was conveyed, whether it was understood etc.? We would suggest that there are two key avenues. Obviously, the key source of information is the client himself. You should speak with the client and ask basic questions to establish the circumstances:  Speak to the client and figure out what happened, focusing your enquiries on the points raised above (how and when they were notified of their rights, whether a Letter of Rights was provided, whether they were understood etc.). Do not assume that just because the Letter of Rights is in the file, it was effectively conveyed. Ask whether they have the Letter of Rights in their possession and if not, why not. However, the courts are likely to be mindful of the perceived possibility of suspects all claiming that they were not properly notified of rights. In order to ensure the courts approach this fairly, you need to rely on the Directive and EU law more generally. Consider Article 8(1), in the provision entitled ‘verification and remedies’: ‘1. Member States shall ensure that when information is provided to suspects or accused persons in accordance with Articles 3 to 6 this is noted using the recording procedure specified in the law of the Member State concerned.’ The Directive clearly places an onus upon Member States to positively document the provision of information in accordance with the Directive. If the record does not include key details (e.g. confirmation that the suspect understood the rights), you can use this in your favour and say that the court should take into account your client’s version of events. Indeed, what else is there? Even if the formal record positively suggests the Letter of Rights was provided, you should encourage the court to consider your client’s evidence and not consider its jurisdiction fettered. This lies deep in the detailed procedures for raising procedural violations in your Member State, but EU principles apply. In particular, the principle of effectiveness requires that: 21