In the specific context of Article 6, this means that a criminal trial (in general) has to have taken place before it can be decided whether it was fair or not. The ECtHR has developed a consistent line of principle according to which it looks at the whole procedure to make that assessment: Compliance with the requirements of fair trial must be examined in each case having regard to the development of the proceedings as a whole and not on the basis of the isolated consideration of one particular aspect or one particular incident.10 In this context, the specific rights set out in Article 6(3) of the Convention – such as the right of access to a lawyer guaranteed by Article 6(3)(c) – are generally not seen as self-standing norms but specific aspects of the general right to a fair trial contained in Article 6(1), and are factored into the assessment of the fairness of the proceedings as a whole: The guarantees in paragraph 3 (c) of Article 6 are specific aspects of the right to a fair hearing set forth in paragraph 1 of this provision which must be taken into account in any assessment of the fairness of proceedings. In addition, the Court’s primary concern under Article 6 § 1 is to evaluate the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings.11 2. Article 6(3) ECHR and trial stage issues If an issue is raised under Article 6(3) concerning something that happens at trial, the overall fairness assessment will be focused on the court proceedings. Thus, it is common for the ECtHR to find violations of Article 6(3)(a) (the right to be informed of the charge) due to the late reclassification of an offence by a trial or appeal court vis a vis what was originally alleged in an indictment, leaving the person with no possibility to be heard in respect of the reclassified allegation. This may, equally, apply in relation to the right of access to a lawyer under Article 6(3)(c). Thus, for instance, in 2016 the ECtHR found the United Kingdom in violation of Article 6(3)(c) ECHR due to a failure to provide access to a lawyer in proceedings for committal of a person to prison for contempt of court (proceedings which are considered criminal due to the penalty at stake). The person had no legal representation and thus no ability to exercise rights available to them in those proceedings. 3. Article 6(3) ECHR and pre-trial issues For present purposes, however, the focus is on pre-trial issues, not least what happens at the police station. It follows from the overall fairness approach that specific issues relating to Article 6 arising in the pre-trial phase can be relevant under Article 6 only where they have an impact upon the fairness of the proceedings as a whole, including the court proceedings: Certainly the primary purpose of Article 6 as far as criminal matters are concerned is to ensure a fair trial by a "tribunal" competent to determine "any criminal charge", but it does not follow that [Article 6] has no application to pre-trial proceedings (…) Other requirements of Article 6 – especially of paragraph 3 (art. 6-3) – may also be relevant 10 11 Pishchalnikov v. Russia, App. No 7025/04 (Judgment of 24 September 2009). For example Bandaletov v. Ukraine App. No 23180/06 (Judgment of 31 October 2013), paragraph 54. 7