O’HALLORAN AND FRANCIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 17 statements against his will of itself destroys the very essence of that right. The Court is unable to accept this. It is true, as pointed out by the applicants, that in all the cases to date in which “direct compulsion” was applied to require an actual or potential suspect to provide information which contributed, or might have contributed, to his conviction, the Court has found a violation of the applicant’s privilege against self-incrimination. It does not, however, follow that any direct compulsion will automatically result in a violation. While the right to a fair trial under Article 6 is an unqualified right, what constitutes a fair trial cannot be the subject of a single unvarying rule but must depend on the circumstances of the particular case. This was confirmed in the specific context of the right to remain silent in Heaney and McGuinness and, more recently, in the Court’s judgment in Jalloh, in which the Court identified the factors to which it would have regard in determining whether the applicant’s privilege against selfincrimination had been violated. 54. The applicants maintained that the Jalloh case was distinguishable from the present in that it concerned not the obtaining by compulsion of incriminatory statements but rather the use of “real” evidence of the kind indicated in Saunders such as breath, blood and urine samples and thus was an exception to the general rule laid down in that judgment. The Court accepts that the factual circumstances of Jalloh were very different from the present case. It is nevertheless unpersuaded by the applicants’ argument. Even if a clear distinction could be drawn in every case between the use of compulsion to obtain incriminatory statements on the one hand and “real” evidence of an incriminatory nature on the other, the Court observes that the Jalloh case was not treated as one falling within the “real” evidence exception in Saunders; on the contrary, the Court held that the case was to be treated as one of self-incrimination according to the broader meaning given to that term in Funke and J.B. v. Switzerland to encompass cases in which coercion to hand over incriminatory evidence was in issue (see Jalloh, cited above, §§ 113-16). 55. In the light of the principles contained in its Jalloh judgment, and in order to determine whether the essence of the applicants’ right to remain silent and privilege against self-incrimination was infringed, the Court will focus on the nature and degree of compulsion used to obtain the evidence, the existence of any relevant safeguards in the procedure, and the use to which any material so obtained was put. 56. The nature and degree of the compulsion used to obtain the evidence in the case of Mr O’Halloran, or to attempt to obtain the evidence in the case of Mr Francis, were set out in the Notice of Intended Prosecution each applicant received. They were informed that, as registered keepers of their vehicles, they were required to provide the full name and address of the driver at the time and on the occasion specified. They were each informed that failure to provide the information was a criminal offence under