 Argue:  The ECtHR has already made clear that the right to counsel is a ‘prime example’ of a procedural right requiring the protection of the knowing and intelligent waiver standard, due to its role as a gateway right (see Pishchalnikov v. Russia).  The Right to Information Directive imposed a key safeguard around waiver by requiring provision of information on rights, in the form of a Letter of Rights if the person is deprived of liberty. In parallel, Article 9(2) of the Directive establishes that a waiver of the right to a lawyer cannot be valid unless prior information is given. It follows logically that the failure to comply with the Right to Information Directive (in particular the provision of a letter of rights) renders the waiver of the right of access to a lawyer invalid. The Right to Information Directive itself confirms that a Letter of Rights should be translated in accordance with Interpretation & Translation Directive, so provision of information in the suspect’s language should be seen as a precondition for a valid waiver.  Even if information is given, it must be ‘clear and sufficient’ under Article 9(2) and it must cover the content of the right and the consequences of waiving it. A mere notification that a person has a right to a lawyer will not suffice.  Article 9(2), read with recital 39, points towards an individualised recording of the circumstances of the waiver taking into account the suspect’s personal situation. The provision appears to aim to place the court in a position to satisfy itself, later on, that a waiver has been validly given in the specific case. The failure to take note of specific circumstances in the recording (eg. that the suspect understood he faced a potentially lengthy sentence) calls into doubt the validity of the waiver.  If the court cannot satisfy itself that the waiver is valid in the specific case, the absence of a lawyer should be treated as a breach of Article 3 and, accordingly, remedies applied pursuant to Article 12 of the Directive. c. The issue of irrebuttable police records LEAP members and attendees at Fair Trials trainings (particularly from France and Luxembourg) have often pointed to the issue of police records being treated as conclusive or irrebuttable: if the minutes say the right was waived, the contrary cannot be proved. The structure of Article 9 points towards the need for an individualised record of the circumstances of the waiver, which can only be in order to enable the court to satisfy itself that the waiver is valid. This recognises that this may be a disputed fact. Procedural rules which prevent the calling of rebuttal evidence – even if the suspect gives a detailed and credible account – would appear problematic. We believe that the ‘effectiveness’ case-law of the CJEU may be relevant. An instructive example is the Opinion of Advocate-General Sharpston in Case C-187/10 Unal:40 Case C-187/10 Unal concerned the exercise by a Turkish national of certain rights derived from an EU-Turkey agreement which forms part of EU law. His residence permit had been revoked retroactively on the basis that he was found, on the basis of local population records, not to have been living with the person mentioned in his 40 Case C-187/10 Unal ECLI:EU:C:2011:623. 27