    Article 6(1) is a general obligation, reflecting Article 6(3)(a) ECHR. It thus applies throughout the proceedings and affords a right of information to all persons within the scope of the Directive, suspected or accused, arrested or not. Article 6(2) reflects the obligations in Article 5(2) ECHR (combined with Article 5(1)(c) ECHR) and provides a protection to persons arrested so they know the basis for their arrest. There is a possible link to Article 7(1) of the Directive (see later). Article 6(3) essentially refers to the act of indictment, requiring a clear legal classification of the offence and the nature of participation of the accused. This would seem to match the focus in the ECtHR case-law on the indictment / particulars of offence,43 which enable the accused to prepare for the trial of the merits. However, a problem arises from the a contrario interpretation: if legal classification is only definitely required for the indictment, then this might not be required for the early notification given to people arrested. This is possibly answered, however, by the requirement in Article 6(2) to specify the ‘criminal’ act the person is suspected or accused of having committed: if it is criminal, it is because a provision of law criminalises it and a classification is presupposed. Indeed, Recital 28 refers to the ‘possible legal classification’ being provided before the first official interview. Article 6(3) simply requires the allegation to be fully specified and classified in the indictment, as befits that stage of proceedings, as this is a crucial point of defence preparation (as recognised by the ECtHR). Article 6(4) reflects the requirement in ECtHR case-law for reclassifications44 of the offence to be notified in order to provide the suspect or accused with an opportunity to offer a defence; the suggestion that this should be done only ‘where this is necessary’ might be intended to reflect the allowance made by the ECtHR for reclassifications which could have been anticipated, and thus did not ‘need’ to be notified in advance. D. USING THE DIRECTIVE IN PRACTICE 1. Identify the deficiency in the notification of accusations a. Failure to classify the offence Consider the situation where the person is arrested but the offence is not specified. It may be that police are considering several possible charges (e.g. alleged facts may be regarded as either theft or robbery using force, or either simple possession of drugs or possession with intention to supply). It may be practice – though we do not suggest this is good practice – for police to decide upon a qualification as a result only following further investigations, but nevertheless to question the suspect in the meantime (e.g., in respect of the above examples, consultation of video surveillance footage, or an evaluation of the quantity of active substance in the drugs seized). b. Under-classification at the point of questioning A case currently pending before the ECtHR, Čierny v. Slovakia,45 relates to the case of a person arrested for a conspiracy to traffic offence, carrying a penalty of four to ten years and made confessions, expressed remorse etc. Later, the offence was reclassified as an aggravated form of the 43 Case of Juha Nuutinen v. Finland, App. no. 45830/99 (Judgment of 24 April 2007), paragraphs 30-32. Pélissier and Sassi v. France, cited above note 35, Drassich v. Italy, cited above note 40. 45 Case of Čierny v. Slovakia, App no. 29384/12 (pending). 44 28