O’HALLORAN AND FRANCIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT – DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PAVLOVSCHI 33 The last thing I would like to mention is the following. At the end of paragraph 57 the Court reaches the following conclusion: “... Those who choose to keep and drive motor cars can be taken to have accepted certain responsibilities and obligations as part of the regulatory regime relating to motor vehicles, and in the legal framework of the United Kingdom these responsibilities include the obligation, in the event of suspected commission of roadtraffic offences, to inform the authorities of the identity of the driver on that occasion.” This is another argument with which I am unable to agree. In my opinion, it would run counter to the letter and the spirit of the Convention to allow member States to apply to a huge swathe of the population such a “blanket” statutory deprivation of their fundamental rights in the field of criminal law and criminal procedure. Of course, and there should be no doubt about this, motor-car drivers are under an obligation to comply with the various traffic regulations. However, when one of their number faces criminal prosecution and trial, he or she must enjoy all the guarantees provided by Article 6, regardless of how heavy a burden this entails. These are the reasons which prevent me from sharing the position taken by the majority in the present case.