The UK High Court, in the case of Badre, considered the issue of ECHR compliance and the EAW. It found, relying upon Saadi v. Italy, that the Article 3 test in an extradition case required substantial grounds for believing that he or she, if extradited, would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3. The burden of proof was considered to be less than that of the balance of probabilities, but the risk must be more than ‘fanciful.’151 It noted the strong, but rebuttable, presumption attributable to a member state that is a signatory to the ECHR in relation to its willingness to fulfil its obligations under the Convention.152 Assurances on foot of surrender In Badre, a number of assurances where given in writing from the Italian Ministry, firstly that Mr Badre would be kept in conditions complying with the provisions of Article 3 ECHR and secondly that he would not “necessarily be incarcerated” in a particular prison. In assessing the value of assurances the Court relied upon the case of Othman whereby the Court would look to “the quality of the assurances given and, second, whether in light of the receiving State’s practices they can be relied upon.”153 In that case the court considered eleven different criteria to assess the assurances, including whether the assurance was general or specific in nature, the source of the assurance, and “whether compliance with the assurances can be objectively verified through diplomatic or other monitoring mechanisms […]”154 The Court in its further consideration of diplomatic assurances and the issue of prison conditions in the context of Article 3 ECHR noted that no “thought has been given to the practicalities of ensuring that, […] if returned the appellant will not be exposed to prison conditions that are in breach of Article 3. Whilst of course every case will be fact specific, in my view, in the face of a pilot judgment identifying a systemic failure of a state’s prison system, a simple assurance from that state that the Article 3 rights of an individual (who, if returned is at risk of being detained) will not be breached, will, without more, rarely if ever be sufficient to persuade a court that there is not a risk of such a breach.”155 In the subsequent case of Elashmawy156 the Court considered additional assurances subsequent to Badre, and found that there were sufficient assurances to grant execute the warrant. A series of cases before the English High Court considered the issues of Article 3 ECHR relating to prison conditions in Poland, in the context of extraditions between the UK and Poland. The Court considered what steps should be taken in both the cases before the Court and future extraditions involved Poland, where there was a risk that on surrender an individual might be subjected to torture or inhuman treatment. The Court considered firstly, that Poland, ”as Member State of the Council of Europe, is presumed to be able and willing to fulfil its obligation under the Convention, in the absence of clear, cogent and compelling evidence to the contrary.”157 It then drew from the jurisprudence of the CJEU, in particular NS, and noted that mutual confidence in other states is the raison d’être of the EU. In order to rebut this presumption of compliance with the Convention, an individual raising the issue of inhuman prison conditions was required to support 151 Hayle Abdi Badre v. Court of Florence [2014] EWHC 614 at paragraph 40. 152 Hayle Abdi Badre v. Court of Florence [2014] EWHC 614 at paragraph 40. See also the decision of Mr Justice Hickinbottom, at paragraph 64. 153 Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK (2012) 55 EHRR 1. Para 189. 154 Ibidem. 155 Hayle Abdi Badre v. Court of Florence [2014] EWHC 614 at paragraph 66. 156 Elashmawy v Italy (2015) EWHC 28 (Admin). 157 Hayle Abdi Badre v. Court of Florence [2014] EWHC 614 at paragraph 41 see also Krolik & Otrs v Several Judicial Authorities of Poland [2012] EWHC 2357 (Admin) para 4. 40