The Court considers a person to acquire the status of a suspect calling for the application of the Article 6 safeguards not when it is formally assigned to him or her, but when the domestic authorities have plausible reasons for suspecting that person’s involvement in a criminal offence (…).65 This approach was originally derived from the case of Brusco v. France,66 which related to old provisions of law which have long since been amended. A person was cited by judicial order to appear as a witness and held in police custody for questioning whilst having, under domestic law, the status of a witness. The ECtHR noted that, at this point, testimony of other witnesses already provided reason to suspect the applicant of having been involved in the commission of the offence, and that when he was cited to appear and held for questioning he was a ‘charged’ within the meaning of Article 6, despite having the formal status only of a witness in national law. Accordingly, the failure to notify him of his right to silence infringed Article 6. Applying this approach, the ECtHR therefore finds violations of Article 6 when an incriminating statement made by a person in a context where they were, objectively, under suspicion but where they were not informed of their rights to legal assistance and silence is used against them to found a conviction; by contrast, where an admission is made completely voluntarily, in circumstances where police did not have reason to suspect the person, no violation arises. For instance:    Violation due to the failure to inform a person at a roadside stop, when there was already suspicion against them for theft of diesel fuel, of his right to silence and legal assistance before asking him questions about the offence, with his statement being used at trial;67 Violation due to the failure to inform a person questioned in the context of a mutual legal assistance request from another country, in which context they did not have the status of a suspect, of their right to silence, despite the fact of the mutual legal assistance revealing that there was evidence to indicate the person had committed an offence;68 No violation when a person, one among many questioned as a witness, voluntarily confessed in full, no further questioning then taking place until he had been provided with legal advice.69 C. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE The key provision here is Article 2(1), defining the scope of application of the Directive ratione personae and temporis. It states: 65 Bandeltov v. Ukraine ,cited above note 9, paragraph 56. Case of Brusco v. France, App. no 1466/07 (Judgment of 14 October 2010). 67 Zaichenko v. Russia, cited above note 10 68 Stoijkovic v. France and Belgium, cited above note 10. 69 Bandeltov v. Ukraine, cited above note 9. 66 44