assistance of a lawyer, despite requesting one, and without being advised of his right to silence. Subsequently, in France, the person was advised by a lawyer and remained silent before the judge. However, his earlier statements were held against him and he was indicted and convicted at trial, which the ECtHR found infringed Article 6(3)(c). The relevance of this issue is brought into focus by Directive 2014/41/EU on the European Investigation Order (EIO), due to be implemented by April 2017, which provides for the execution of investigative steps by Member State B at the order of a judicial authority in Member State A. The Directive does not expressly apply to EIO proceedings, and the legislation does not govern in any detail the procedural safeguards which should be applied at the point of executing an EIO. It seems possible that issues around access to a lawyer might therefore arise. In this event, the point is to use the ‘core device’ introduced earlier, only relying on a violation in another coutry. i. Try to ensure the questioning is compatible with Article 3 You will be in a much stronger position if you ensure that questioning in another country takes place in accordance with Article 3 in the first place. This will, for instance, ensure that a person is properly able to exercise their right to remain silent. If you are already instructed in the country where the criminal proceedings are taking place, you should seek to ensure that any letter rogatory or EIO issued specifies that the person should be heard in accordance with the requirements of Article 3 of the Directive. You may, equally, see fit to contact a colleague in the issuing country (contact Fair Trials if you need assistance in finding a lawyer in that jurisdiction). It is important to undertake these steps (assuming you are instructed) because, if the person is then for some reason not heard in the presence of a lawyer, you will be in a stronger position to argue against the use of the evidence obtained in the main criminal proceedings (see point iii below).  Ensure the letter rogatory / EIO specifies that the person should be heard as a suspect and with the right of access to a lawyer. Inform the judicial authority concerned that you will, in due course, argue against the use of any evidence obtained if the procedure is not compatible with Article 3 of the Directive.  Contact a lawyer in the executing / requested country through networks like LEAP or (for Council of Europe countries) the European Criminal Bar Association. ii. Identify and document the violation in the executing / requested state It is possible that a person might not be heard with a lawyer, despite your best efforts. National law or practice in the other country might not provide for this, or, more fundamentally, there may be no legal aid available to pay for it. If, for whatever reason, the person is heard without a lawyer present in the executing / requested state, this should be relatively simple to establish. This should appear on the face of the record, and the client will be able to tell you what happened. You may, equally, suspect that the person has been recorded as having ‘waived’ their right in a manner incompatible with the Directive (as to which see Part II – the same arguments will apply in this context). In that case, you will have to enquire as to how the person was notified of any rights they did have and whether their relinquishment was compatible with the Directive.  Establish how the questioning was incompatible with Article 3: 20