“the mechanism of the European Arrest Warrant is based on a high level of confidence between Member States. Its implementation may be suspended only in the event of a serious and persistent breach by one of the Member States of the principles set out in Article 6(1) of the TEU determined by the Council.” While it has been argued that fundamental rights violations might constitute such exceptional cases for some time by a number of authors,27 this was finally confirmed by the CJEU in its recent Aranyosi/ Caldӑrӑru judgment, which will be discussed in detail in chapter 3. Before considering this important decision further, the fundamental rights challenges relating to Article 3 ECHR, linked to the different mutual recognition instruments affecting detention will be examined. 1.3.1. council framework decision 2002/584/jha on the european arrest warrant The transposition deadline for the implementation of the FD EAW was the 31 December 2003. The FD EAW was the first of such measures rooted in mutual recognition to have been fully implemented across the EU, and the last Member State transposed it in July 2013.28 It changed extradition procedures substantially between Member States,29replacing the former Council of Europe mechanisms.30 It set up a cooperation mechanism between the national judicial authorities establishing a largely automatic extradition procedure. 31 The FD EAW combines arrest and surrender in one single judicial act, which previously had been two separate proceedings.32 As a consequence, the process of surrender is simplified and sped up.33 Some principles of extradition law were overhauled between Member States, for example the exception for the surrender of nationals and residents, exceptions for political offences and the principle of double criminality.34 The substantive and procedural criminal systems in Member States are not assumed to be identical, but deemed to be equivalent.35 27 Jannemieke Ouwerkerk, ´Mutual Trust in the Area of Criminal Law´ in Meijers Committe, The principle of Mutual Trust in European Asylum, Migration and Criminal Law. Reconciling Trust and Fundamental Rights, Forum Institute for Multicultural Affaires (Dec. 2011) p.41 [hereinafter: Ouwerkerk (2011)]; Christine Janssens, The Principle of Mutual Recognition in EU Law (1st edn, Oxford University Press 2013) pp.142-143 [hereinafter: Janssens (2013)]. 28 The last EU MS to transpose the EAW was Croatia, see European Judicial Network, ´Status of implementation of 2002/584/ JHA: European Arrest Warrant (EAW) of 13 June 2002´ available at www.ejn-crimjust.europa.eu/ejn/EJN_library_statusOfImpByCat.aspx?CategoryId=36 Croatia transposed it upon joining the EU. 29 See Case C‑399/11, Melloni [2013] para. 37: The “’Framework Decision 2002/584 thus seeks, by the establishment of a new simplified and more effective system for the surrender of persons convicted or suspected of having infringed criminal law, to facilitate and accelerate judicial cooperation with a view to contributing to the objective set for the European Union to become an area of freedom, security and justice by basing itself on the high degree of confidence which should exist between the Member States;” Also see Peers, EU Justice and Home Affairs Law (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2008) p.696 [hereinafter: Peers (2008)]. 30 For further details see: Peers (2008) pp. 693-696. e.g. EU: Schengen Convention 1990; European Union Convention on Simplified Extradition Procedure (1995); European Policy Centre: EPC Convention on the application of the Council of Europe terrorism Convention (1979), EPC Convention on double jeopardy (1987), EPC Convention on the transfer of sentenced persons (1987), EPC Convention on the international validity of criminal judgements (1990), EPC Convention on transfer of criminal proceedings (1990); Council of Europe: Council of Europe Convention on Extradition (1957). Supplemented by Additional Protocol (1975) and Second Additional Protocol (1978). Council of Europe Convention on the suppression of terrorism (1977). 31 Nicola Vennemann, ´The European Arrest Warrant and Its Human rights Implications.´ ZaöRV (2003) Vol.63, available at www.zaoerv.de, pp.103 et seq. [hereinafter: Vennemann (2003)]. 32 Vennemann (2003) p. 108; Mitsilegas (2012) p.322. 33 Mitsilegas (2012) p. 324. 34 Vennemann (2003) pp.110 et seq. 35 European Commission, COM (2011) 327 final, p.4. 19