Of course, these are our arguments and the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR may take a more relaxed approach when it gives judgment in Ibrahim and Others v. United Kingdom. However, that is the line we encourage you to take:  Argue: Article 3(6) permits questioning without a lawyer but only for a specific, preventive purpose linked to urgent risks of harm to others. It means the absence of a lawyer will not be a breach of Article 3 itself. However, as is clear from Article 12(2), a remedy is still nevertheless needed in respect of evidence obtained in this context. Accordingly, in line with the generic approach discussed in Part I, the evidence obtained should not be used for a conviction. 34