  If the step is recorded in the minutes of a judge, police etc., check whether any mention is made of those matters; and Speak with the client and ask them about this. If they confirm that they were not given any information, use this evidence in support of your challenge (below). In addition, establish with the client whether they would have proceeded differently had they been advised of their rights. 3. Seek a remedy The type of challenge you will make will depend upon the stage of proceedings at which you find yourself. If it is at a pre-trial stage, you may still be seeking the prevention of further investigative acts, the commuting of charges which are based on the evidence obtained earlier on, or you may be seeking to ensure that the trial court does not take account of any of the evidence collected pursuant to the violation. 71 Either way, you are calling upon the court to ensure the effect of the Directive:  Invoke the Directive before the competent court.  The Directive applies to ‘suspects and accused persons’ and applies from the time that they are ‘charged’ within the meaning of Article 6 ECHR. This is interpreted by the ECtHR as meaning that a person becomes charged when the authorities have plausible reasons to believe that the person has committed an offence.  For the following reasons (e.g. the authorities had already heard another witness who had denounced the client), this test was satisfied and it was incumbent upon the authorities to notify the ‘witness’ that he was suspected of an offence, and provide the information required by Articles 3 and 6 of the Directive.  Because of the failure / decision not to do so, the client made decisions regarding the conduct of his defence (e.g. making confessions, supplying documents) without fully understanding the consequences of this.  Accordingly, in order to ensure the effectiveness of the Directive and safeguard the fairness of the proceedings, the court must redress any prejudice caused when taking its own decision. It must, therefore, declare any investigative steps which have their foundation in the violation of the Directive invalid / disregard any evidence obtained as a result of the violation of the Directive.  Even if the evidence was obtained prior to the person becoming a suspect, the court must ensure that its decision is free of any contamination from the breach of the Directive, the impact of which must be fully undone. 71 See the ‘Using EU Law in Practice’ Toolkit for more discussion of the remedies issue. 47