concerned should be taken into account, including their age and their mental and physical condition. (40) A waiver and the circumstances in which it was given should be noted using the recording procedure in accordance with the law of the Member State concerned. This should not lead to any additional obligation for Member States to introduce new mechanisms or to any additional administrative burden. (41) Where a suspect or accused person revokes a waiver in accordance with this Directive, it should not be necessary to proceed again with questioning or any procedural acts that have been carried out during the period when the right concerned was waived. It is also worth bearing in mind paragraph 11 of the Commission recommendation on procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons suspected or accused of in criminal proceedings:39 11. If a vulnerable person is unable to understand and follow the proceedings, the right to access to a lawyer in accordance with [the Directive] should not be waived. We make the following observations about these provisions:  Information has to be provided about the right ‘orally or in writing’. The Right to Information Directive governs the provision of information about right to suspects and is clear that, for a person deprived of liberty, information must be provided in writing as a Letter of Rights. We think that the information required in Article 9 of this Directive should be included within the written content of the Letter of Rights where the latter has to be given. The point of the Letter of Rights is to enable people to exercise their rights, and the possibility of waiving is part of that.  The Directive requires ‘clear and sufficient information’ about the ‘content of the right and the possible consequences of waiving it’. This adds to the general requirement of the notification of rights / Letter of Rights which has to be given under the Right to Information Directive. Whereas that measure regulated only the manner of delivery of the information, here the EU standard begins to govern its content, which must cover the content of the right and the consequences of waiving it. The aim of this part of Article 9, in our view, is obviously to ensure that the ‘knowing and intelligent’ waiver standard is adhered to by ensuring the suspect has the right information.  The requirement for the waiver to be ‘voluntary and unequivocal’ appears to reflect the general standard of the ECtHR case-law above. Article 9(2) requires the recording of the circumstances of the waiver in order to ensure that doubts arising as to its validity – including before the courts later – can be properly considered. D. USING THE DIRECTIVE IN PRACTICE What you essentially want to do with the Directive is challenge the admission or use of evidence which has been collected as a result of a waiver which you deem to be ineffective. The basic argument is that the absence of the lawyer is in fact a violation of Article 3, because the purported waiver was not compatible with Article 9; accordingly, remedies should be applied under Article 12. 39 Commission Recommendation of 27 November 2013 on procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons suspected or accused in criminal proceedings (OJ 2013 C 387, p. 8). 25