2.4. framework decisions on detention as challenges to the prevention of ill - treatment : conclusions and recommendations Conclusions Both the CJEU and ECtHR remain firmly committed to the absolute prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, and Member States’ well established obligations in this regard. Cases such as Saadi and Chahal from the ECtHR, or N.S. and Aranyosi/Căldăraru from the CJEU demonstrate the firm position that an individual should not be returned where there is a risk of Art. 3 ECHR/Art. 4 CFREU, and indicate the extraterritorial nature of Article 3 ECHR in such cases. The various tests that developed from the case of M.S.S. and the significant line of case law that followed from both Courts demonstrate the tension that exists in relation to mutual recognition and a refusal to execute an EAW arising from the concerns of another Member States human rights standards of detention conditions. The high threshold as elaborated by the CJEU in N.S. which, largely followed the ECtHR position in M.S.S., found that a Court “cannot be unaware” of systemic deficiencies and the real risk of inhuman and degrading treatment should a transfer take place. In Aranyosi and Caldӑrӑru, and the move away from the systemic deficiencies test, noting that in and of itself systemic deficiencies could not prevent the execution of a warrant in the absence of concrete and specific information from the issuing State regarding risks to the individual concerned. While the tests applied in each case by each Court vary somewhat, the constant thread throughout, which is the refusal to permit the return of an individual at risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 remains firm. As one author noted in the context of fighting terrorism and the absolute prohibition of torture;  “The message sent by the ECtHR is clear; in the fight against terrorism, democracies indeed carry a higher burden, which in itself defines them as democratic systems. The reaffirmation of these principles, when the pressure to use less protective means in fighting terrorism is very high, could not have been more timely.“193 National Courts have addressed the Article 3 ECHR challenges and the chances that arise from the application of the Framework Decisions in different ways. Notwithstanding the differences, a number of similar practices and priorities can be identified from the jurisprudence of national courts, the interviews conducted during the course of the project and the discussions from the conferences and workshops. Judges championed the virtues of mutual trust, as an essential precondition for operating mutual recognition instruments. However, in line with the jurisprudence of the CJEU and ECtHR, mutual trust can be “shaken” or displaced where there is a risk that the absolute prohibition of torture and ill treatment is in jeopardy. This is not done lightly, but decided on a case by case approach, rooted firmly in evidence, and where there is a significant risk to the specific individual concerned. The issue of obtaining up-to-date, reliable evidence and guaranteeing article 3 rights following on from a surrender remains problematic. One possibility of addressing the challenge of up-to-date information, through the work of NPMs, will be addressed in the subsequent chapter. National courts also grapple with the question of assurances, and how to ensure monitoring and follow up in relation to EAWs once they have been executed. 193 48 Gianluca Gentili, European Court of Human Rights: An absolute ban on deportation of foreign citizens to countries where torture or ill-treatment is a genuine risk. Oxford University Press (2010), Vol. 8 No. 2, 311–322.