accordance with Article 3(6), the rights of the defence and the fairness of the proceedings are respected. We discuss these provisions in further detail in the paragraphs below under the two types: the geographical remoteness derogation (Article 3(5)) and the substantive derogation (Article 3(6)). D. USING THE DIRECTIVE IN PRACTICE 1. The geographical remoteness derogation a. Geographical remoteness: a high threshold Recital 30 is refers to ‘overseas territories or where the Member State undertakes or participates in military operations outside its territory’ as examples of what is meant by geographical remoteness. One example frequently relied upon by the Council of the EU is that of French Guyana (in South America), though LEAP does not entirely accept this: there, as in the Falkland Islands, it is possible to have systems in place to ensure access to a lawyer. More instructive are the cases in which the ECtHR has been willing to accept delays in production of arrested persons before a judge when they are arrested on the high seas in anti-piracy operations.41 Arrests on oil-rigs to which the Member State’s jurisdiction extends might be another example. Essentially this should be seen as a truly exceptional derogation. In particular, it is not one that can be relied upon to delay access to a lawyer when the arrest happens in a rural area with fewer lawyers. b. Derogation on timing, not the substantive right In the exceptional cases that geographical remoteness applies, Article 3(5) provides a ground for derogating only from the timing of access to a lawyer; it does not permit derogation from the substantive content of the right, ie. the right of the person to have their lawyer with them in questioning, private consultations etc. As is recognised explicitly in recital 30, it is not permissible to question a person where access to a lawyer has been delayed on the basis of the geographical remoteness. If questioning is carried out in that context, there will simply be a violation of Article 3 and a remedy will have to be applied in application of the core device introduced in Part I.  If the suspect is arrested in an area of geographical remoteness, eg. in the context of an overseas operation, this alone justifies only a delay in providing access to a lawyer. It does not justify questioning without a lawyer. If this takes place, this constitutes a breach of Article 3 and you should follow the steps in Part I. 2. The substantive derogation The issues raised in the Ibrahim and Others case are more relevant under Article 3(6). That provision does, by contrast, allow derogation from the rights in paragraph 3 generally, including for instance the right to a private consultation and the right for the lawyer to be present and participate in questioning. This means that police may question the suspect without access to a lawyer, leaving you, the lawyer, with a challenge if any incriminatory statements are made in that context. 41 See the ECtHR Q&A on this: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Press_Q_A_Ali_Samatar_Hassan_FRA.pdf 32