From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

This case ([2001] 31 EHRR 1) in the EHCR demonstrates that the Right to silence, while not absolutely guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, is at the heart of the notion of a fair trial, and that a trial judge must be very careful when directing a jury on the interpretation of a suspect's refusal to answer questions.

The Condrons were accused of supplying heroin, and were intoxicated when questioned by police. Their solicitor advised them to give a 'no comment' interview, on the grounds that they were unfit to be questioned. At trial the judge, in accordance with s.34 of the Criminal justice and public order act (1994) directed the jury members that they were entitled to draw adverse conclusions from the accuseds' failure to respond to questions from the police. However, the EHCR ruled that they had been denied a fair trial. The reasoning was that the jury had not be directed that they could only draw adverse conclusions from the failure of the accused to answer unless it had been shown that the only credible reason was having no answer. In this case, the prosecution had not established that to be the case. Although the ECHR found against the UK, it did not disapprove the finding in Murray v united kingdom (1996) which rejected the idea that the right to silence was absolute.