waiver of the right, once invoked, must not only be voluntary, but must also constitute a knowing and intelligent relinquishment of a right. Before an accused can be said to have implicitly, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (…). 27 When procedural rights are not effectively conveyed to the suspect, the ECtHR finds that the waiver is not effective, as it considers that the decision to waive the right was not taken on a properly informed basis. Consequently, the reliance on statements obtained in that context then means prejudice is caused to the fairness of the proceedings as a whole. The court has pointed to various factors, both objective and subjective, relating to the notification of rights which affect the validity of a waiver of the right of access to lawyer and to counsel:         The fact that rights were notified in a language other than the suspect’s native language, without the assistance of an interpreter.28 The fact of the notification being given only orally in the form of a standard caution (which barely serves the purpose of acquainting the suspect with the content of the rights);29 The ‘stressful situation’ and ‘quick sequence of the events’ leading to questioning of the suspect;30 A ‘certain confusion’ in the mind of the suspect at the point of questioning;31 The young age of the suspect;32 The suspect’s level of literacy;33 Familiarity with police encounters;34 and Drug dependency of the suspect.35 In addition to the above there are some specific comments on the right to legal assistance specifically protected by Article 6(3)(c), which came in the recent case of Pishchalnikov v. Russia: The Court considers that the right to counsel, being a fundamental right among those which constitute the notion of fair trial and ensuring the effectiveness of the rest of the foreseen guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention, is a prime example of those rights which require the special protection of the knowing and intelligent waiver standard.36 A further instalment in this line of case-law came in 2015 with a judgment in the case of Zachar and Cierny v. Slovakia,37 in which Fair Trials intervened to underline the concerns raised by LEAP 27 Saman v. Turkey App. no 35292/05 (Judgment of 5 April 2011). Saman v. Turkey, cited above note 25, paragraph 35. 29 Panovits v. Cyprus App. No 4268/04 (Judgment of 11 December 2008), paragraph 74. 30 Zaichenko v. Russia App. No 33720/05 (Judgment of 1 February 2007), paragraph 55. 31 Stojkovic v. France and Belgium, cited above note 24, paragraph 53. 32 Panovits v. Cyprus, cited above note 29, paragraph 67. 33 Kaciu and Kotorri v. Albania, Apps. nos. 33192/07 and 33194/07 (Judgment of 25 June 2013), para. 120. 34 Pishchalnikov v. Russia, cited above note 10, paragraph 80. 35 Plonka v. Poland, App. no. 20310/02 (Judgment of 31 March 2009), para. 38. 28 36 37 Pishchalnikov v. Russia, cited above 10, paragraph 78. Zachar and Čierny v. Slovakia App. No 29376/12 (Judgment of 21 July 2015). 23