This will make it difficult to perform an analysis on the evidence of specific risks, as the situation in prisons and for specific groups might differ across the country. It remains to be seen whether Aranyosi II to some extent can resolve this issue. 3.4. ways for npms to provide specific information in cross-border cases Having considered how NPMs generally respond to specific requests on a national level, this Study will look to the role of NPMs in providing their expertise in the context of cross-border proceedings. As yet there are few such examples, four NPMs have to date been requested by plaintiffs detained in another state, or their lawyers, to write an expert opinion.342 On the basis of an individual complaint in the context of EAW proceedings regarding a surrender to Lithuania, the Slovenian NPM (pursuant to its Ombudsman mandate), acted as amicus curiae before the court in Slovenia in a case deciding upon the lawfulness of the surrender. The Slovenian Ombudsman submitted, that despite the fact that the implementing legislation in Slovenia does not explicitly include the risk of being subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment in the issuing State as refusal ground, the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment is part of jus cogens norms under international law.343 It furthermore provided the court with specified relevant extracts from the ECtHR judgments relating to Lithuania, CPT reports and references from a number of annual reports of the Lithuanian Seimas Ombudsman. The Ombudsman emphasised that it, “Did not propose to the competent court how to decide (to the benefit of the complainant or otherwise), but merely provided some of the most relevant documentation to aid the court when discussing the violation of the prohibition of torture claimed by the complainant and when making a decision.”344 At first instance, the Slovenian Court rejected the applicants claim, and allowed the surrender. On appeal, the decision was overturned and returned the matter to the court of first instance on the grounds that the Court in its initial decision did not consider the submissions of the Ombudsman, it held that, “the complainant and his attorney had claimed with justification that the court of first instance had failed to provide its position with regard to the documentation provided in the Ombudsman’s letter.”345 In a separate case, also from Slovenia, the Legal Information Centre for NGOs, an NGO that is part of the NPM, was contacted by a UK law firm that sought information on prison conditions in Slovenia in the case of their client, who was to be surrendered to Slovenia. The NGO then provided the law firm with findings of various national and international monitoring bodies, including the NPM reports on prison conditions. The document was issued as a legal analysis and opinion. The Croatian NPM gave an example of an opinion it provided in a transfer case before Croatia’s accession to the EU. In that case, a Turkish national with refugee status in Germany was arrested in Croatia and accused in Turkey of committing terrorist acts. The NPM at the time wrote to the Ministry of Justice advocating that an extradition would be in breach of Art. 3 ECHR. 342 Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Luxembourg 343 See 2015 Annual Report of Slovenian NPM, 69-70. Available: http://www.varuh-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/vcp_lp_2015_eng.pdf. 344 Ibidem. 345 Ibidem. 93