b. The role of pre-trial instances in ensuring the effect of the Directive One frontier we encourage you to explore is the invocability of the Directives before pre-trial instances. Systems may exist within national law to challenge the legality of investigative acts in the ordinary course, e.g. by applying to a chamber for annulment of an act or seeking the exclusion of evidence before the case is sent for trial. However, on a more routine basis, we would suggest that one of the key forums is court competent for determining the issue of pre-trial detention. These are our assumptions about such courts:  The jurisdiction of pre-trial detention instances will usually be limited to matters relating to detention (flight risk, availability of alternatives etc.), and they will not usually be competent to take a view on the legality of an investigative act if this is reserved for a separate court.  It is well-established, however, that in ECtHR jurisprudence that the review of pre-trial detention must extend to a review of the reasonableness of the suspicion against the person,20 which constitutes a condition sine qua non of detention.  The Directives state that they are intended to safeguard the effective exercise of defence rights and do not restrict this to the trial stage. In addition, they all specifically refer to the right to liberty and the presumption of innocence protected by the Charter, suggesting that the exercise of defence rights extends to pre-trial detention decision-making.  To the extent that a violation of the Directive may have an impact on the right to liberty and presumption of innocence at the pre-trial stage, therefore, the pre-trial detention court must, within the limits of its jurisdiction, ensure the objectives of the Directive are met.  Pre-trial detention courts should therefore use their general jurisdiction to review the strength of the case to determine the extent to which possible violations of the Directives may have impacted upon the case (e.g. a confession obtained in breach of a Directive) and avoid basing their decisions on acts which appear to violate the Directives. We therefore make this recommendation, which is certainly defence-friendly but which has the advantage of ensuring compliance with the Directives at the point it matters most:  Start from the basis that the Charter and the direct effect of the relevant provision of the Directive mean the pre-trial court must be able to take into account possible violations of the Directives when taking its decision. It should avoid basing its decision upon procedural acts which appear to violate the Directives. D. USING A DIRECTIVE BEFORE ITS TRANSPOSITION DEADLINE (ACCESS TO A LAWYER) The Access to a Lawyer Directive, which articulates certain aspects of the ECtHR’s case-law further to the Salduz v. Turkey ruling, entered into force on 27 November 2013 (twenty days after the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the EU (see Article 17)). However, at the time of publication of this Toolkit, the deadline for transposition into national law (27 November 2016) is still distant. As such, the Access to a Lawyer Directive cannot itself yet create direct effect in favour of individuals. 20 Nikolova v. Bulgaria App. no 31195/96 (judgment of 25 March 1999), paragraph 58. 12