SMAJIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA DECISION 7 THE LAW A. Complaints under Article 6 of the Convention 17. The applicant alleged a breach of his rights under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “1. In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ... 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; ... ” 1. Alleged denial of access to a lawyer 18. The applicant submitted that on 12 March 2010 he had been questioned without the presence of a lawyer. Although Mr Mulahalilović had called the police station before the questioning and had enquired after the applicant, he had been informed that the applicant was not there. In support of this claim the applicant submitted Mr Mulahalilović’s mobile phone record for March 2010 and a note he had made of the phone call in question. 19. The Court recalls that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided from the first time a suspect is questioned by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify the denial of access to a lawyer, such a restriction – whatever its justification – must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6. The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 55, 27 November 2008, and Dvorski v. Croatia [GC], no. 25703/11, § 80, ECHR 2015). 20. Neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 6 of the Convention prevents a person from waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to the guarantees of a fair trial. However, such a waiver must, if it is to be effective for Convention purposes, be established in an unequivocal manner, must not run counter to any important public interest and must be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate with its importance. Furthermore, it must not run counter to any important public interest (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 86, ECHR 2006-II). For