members around waivers of the right of access to a lawyer discussed above. The ECtHR reviewed the existing principles and made some significant factual findings: The Court observes that any instructions as regards the applicants’ procedural rights were given to them via the first pages of the pre-printed forms on which their pre-trial statements had been transcribed. Such instructions went as far as informing the applicants, without providing any commentary or further explanation, that they had the right to remain silent and the right to choose a lawyer. Conversely, there has been no allegation or other indication that any individualised advice about their situation and rights was provided to the applicants.38 Though it is not referred to specifically, the ECtHR had been referred to the Right to Information Directive in this case and it appears to have taken account of the absence of a separate document with information about rights (distinct from questioning transcripts) and it appears to have deemed it necessary for the applicants (who were facing potentially heavy penalties) to receive ‘individualised’ advice about their situation and rights. This finding post-dates the Directive and may actually add usefully to the content of the Directive. C. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE The key provision of the Directive is Article 9, which appears largely based on the above case-law: 1. Without prejudice to national law requiring the mandatory presence or assistance of a lawyer, Member States shall ensure that, in relation to any waiver of a right referred to in Articles 3 (…): (a) the suspect or accused person has been provided, orally or in writing, with clear and sufficient information in simple and understandable language about the content of the right concerned and the possible consequences of waiving it; and (b) the waiver is given voluntarily and unequivocally. 2. The waiver, which can be made in writing or orally, shall be noted, as well as the circumstances under which the waiver was given, using the recording procedure in accordance with the law of the Member State concerned. 3. Member States shall ensure that suspects or accused persons may revoke a waiver subsequently at any point during the criminal proceedings and that they are informed about that possibility. Such a revocation shall have effect from the moment it is made. A little further detail is provided by recitals 39-41 in the preamble: (39) Suspects or accused persons should be able to waive a right granted under this Directive provided that they have been given information about the content of the right concerned and the possible consequences of waiving that right. When providing such information, the specific conditions of the suspects or accused persons 38 Paragraph 70. 24