  iii. Was there simply no right to a lawyer in the executing state, due to a legal, practical or funding reason? Was the right relinquished in a way which did not comply with the Directive (see Part [II] for the relevant enquiries to make)? Seek remedies in the issuing / requesting state The logic of the Stojkovic v. France and Belgium case is that, though France did not author the impugned questioning, it was nevertheless its responsibility under Article 6 ECHR to secure the fairness of the proceedings before its own courts. A similar logic should apply under the Directive. Member State A (where you act) is an addressee of the Directive and is bound by a result obligation under Article 12: it has to ensure that in the assessment of statements made by the suspect the fairness of the proceedings is respected. It cannot discharge that obligation if it takes into account incriminating statements which have been collected incompatibly with Article 3, even if another Member State is responsible for the questioning. In fact, should make little difference whether the other country is or is not bound by the Directive: what matters is that the local court is so bound.  Seek a remedy (see earlier comments / the Using EU Law Toolkit)  Argue:  The Directive imposes a result obligation upon the Member State to ensure that the fairness of the proceedings is respected. A direct violation of the Directive in questioning by the Member State’s own authorities would fall to be remedied in the assessment of any statements obtained in that context so as to achieve the result of the Directive. The same obligation arises in respect of statements obtained in questioning in another country carried out in a manner incompatible with the Directive. Drawing an artificial distinction between the two would lead to results incompatible with the Directive and deprive it of useful effect (see, by analogy, the ECtHR case of Stojkovic v. France and Belgium). 21