Accessibility of reports As can be seen from Figure 1 above, most NPMs publish their annual reports fully or partially in English. They are therefore easily accessible if one knows where to look for them, which might be a bit more difficult. This is not the case for the vast majority of visiting reports, whereby if they are public at all, they are only available in the national languages and not in English. While it would be useful to have these reports in English in order to easily consider and rely upon them as a basis for taking decisions in transfer cases, this does not seem to be realistic due to resource implications this would have for NPMs. Accessibility also depends on how easily these reports can be retrieved online. While the SPT website currently compiles the annual reports, not all NPMs seem to share their reports on time with the SPT, which is why some annual reports are currently missing. Furthermore, the website does not contain the visiting reports of NPMs.337 Judges and Ministry of Justice representatives underlined the challenge they would face when searching for reports by NPMs. Several stakeholders therefore suggested that a central database for NPM reports would be beneficial. FRA informed the authors of this report, that they are in the process of starting discussions on a search tool, establishing a metasearch of existing databases, which could also include reports on conditions of detentions in EU Member States.338 Obtaining of information on individual risks As referred to above, the executing judicial authority in the context of EAW proceedings must be satisfied that it has objective, reliable, accurate and up-to-date information on deficiencies in the prison system. According to the CJEU, once in possession of information showing the existence of a general and systemic risk of ill-treatment, judges must verify whether there are serious and proven grounds to believe that the individual concerned will be under threat. The CJEU is clear on the fact that a generalised situation of ill-treatment in a country, due to, for example, endemic overcrowding or poor sanitary conditions, does not constitute a reason to refuse the execution of an EAW. Thus the executing State is obliged to check whether under concrete circumstances and because of reasons that are confirmed by facts, the person, after transfer to the issuing State, will be subject to a serious risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in this Member State.339 The judicial authority in the executing State must thus perform an individual analysis, and, to this end, request further information from the judiciary of the issuing State regarding the conditions in which the person would be kept.340 Judges must also inform the executing State of “the existence, in the issuing Member State, of any national or international procedures and mechanisms for monitoring detention conditions, linked, for example, to visits to prisons, which make it possible to assess the current state of detention conditions in those prisons.”341 The CJEU places an onus on the executing authorities to seek out from the issuing authority information, not only on the material conditions of the prison in which the individual will be detained, but evidence of a specific risk that the individual would face on surrender. A challenge in this regard is that in many States it does not seem to be possible for authorities to inform the executing State with any degree of certainty, precisely which prison the individual will be transferred to upon surrender. 337 See website of the SPT. Available: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/OPCAT/Pages/AnnualreportsreceivedfromNPM.aspx (3 November 2016). 338 Interview with Jonas Grimheden, FRA, 24.10.2016. Also see Chapter 6.4 below. 339 See Joined Cases C‑404/15, Aranyosi and C‑659/15 PPU, Caldӑrӑru, [2016] paras. 94 et seq. 340 Joined Cases C‑404/15, Aranyosi and C‑659/15 PPU, Caldӑrӑru [2016] paras. 95. 341 Ibidem, para. 96. 92