Greece The Appeal Council in Greece, refused the execution of EAWs issued by the Italian authorities against five students who had participated in a demonstration in Milan in May 2015.167 The reason given for the refusal to execute the request was the belief that if the students would be sent to Italy they would face penalties of imprisonment of between 8-15 years, while under Greek legislation the offences were misdemeanours and therefore the students would normally be released on probation. Therefore, according to the Greek authorities, their right to fair trial was undermined. The broad concept of the prevention of torture and ill treatment is also closely linked to right to a fair trial and the rule of law more general. The UNODC Counter Terrorism and Human Rights Working Group noted that the right to a fair trial “comprises various interrelated attributes and is often linked to the enjoyment of other rights, such as the right to life and the prohibition against torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”168 Belgium In Belgium, in a decision of December 2006 a Chamber of the Courts of Appeal169 in Brussels refused to execute an EAW issued by the Austrian authorities against an individual accused of rape. In the context of refusing to execute the warrant, it was found that the individual was not summoned in connection with the proceedings before the Linz Court of Appeal. While this lack of notice was justified by the fact that the legislation at that time did not foresee such a duty, according to the Court the right to be heard is a fundamental right that needs to be respected especially since Austrian law was since modified in this regard. Furthermore, it was found that the principle of the presumption of innocence was not respected, since certain parts of the warrant seemed to prejudge the guilt of the person concerned and the sentence that will be imposed.170 The presumption of innocence has been linked to Article 3 ECHR with regard to the privilege of self-incrimination and the protection against forced confessions.171 A recent example of a refusal to execute an EAW from Belgium in 2013, is the case of Jauregui Espina. In that case the Court refused the surrender of an alleged ETA terrorist suspect to Spain, based on the particular use of ‘incommunicado detention’ in relation to ETA terrorist suspects in Spain.172 167 Three decisions have been issued in this regard on 7.1.2016 (for two students), 8.1.2016 (for two students) and 11.1.2016 (for the fifth student), available at http://www.tovima.gr/en/article/?aid=767853. As of 15 January 2016, they have not been published yet. 168 UNODC Right to a fair trial and due process in the context of counter terrorism available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ newyork/Documents/FairTrial.pdf para 9. 169 Chambre des Mises en Accusation. 170 Chambre des mises en accusation de Bruxelles (8 Dec. 2006). For further information in this regard, see Anne Weyembergh and Veronica Santamaria, ‘La reconnaissance mutuelle en matière pénale en Belgique’(2006) p.76. 171 Peers and others, The Charter of Fundamental Rights – A Commentary, 2014 at page 1323. See also the UNODC Right to a fair trial and due process in the context of counter terrorism available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/newyork/Documents/ FairTrial.pdf para51. 172 Meysman, Belgium and the European Arrest Warrant: Is European Criminal Cooperation Under Pressure? EuCLR European Criminal Law Review, p.186 – 210. 43