It was an interrogation. The ECHR has described it as an interrogation in its communication! That's a real problem for your analysis. Did you seriously think that there was some kind of category defence to the conduct of the police and Mignini such that an argument could be made along the lines that in a questura interrogation room, late at night, in the company of the authorities who requested her attendance in the room, a young woman's experience could be passed off as a camomile tea party during which, all of her human rights are unenforceable?
In such a room, in these circumstances whatever she says can be used as the exclusive basis for an arrest and later charges, apparently, yet still her rights are held in abeyance. And so, the denial of her rights is no denial at all, since, again apparently, she has no rights to deny. Even after her arrest, she is given no access to a lawyer. In fact, the first occasion she sees a lawyer is immediately before she comes before a judge. So tell me, why is she entitled to a lawyer at this point? Why does she have any entitlement at all in connection with these matters? And what is it that determines an entitlement then but legitimately precludes it at any time before?
ECHR case law, for your information requires the provision of counsel at the earliest possible opportunity. When, according to you, was the earliest possible opportunity? When she is taken into the interrogation room? At 1:45? At 5:45? On the occasion of her arrest? In the prison to which she is taken? Or, actually, moments before she stood in front of a judge when there was no time or opportunity for a consultation?
