JUSTICE FOR ALL requested person's life or health,”312 these cases demonstrate the central role of the right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in EAW proceedings. Indeed, out of the two fundamental rights which have been relied on by the Court to accept the refusal for the executing state to surrender an arrested individual, Art 4 is the most used. In the cases of LM313 and Lluís Puig Gordi,314 the fundamental right of having access to a tribunal established by law, as found in Art 47 of the Charter, had been recognised by the Court as having been violated, adding the right to a fair trial to the right not to be subjected to torture. The cases also relied on Art 6 (right to fair trial) of the ECHR and on associated ECtHR jurisprudence. The Lluís Puig Gordi case added the necessity for the first step of the test from Aranyosi and Căldăraru to be fulfilled before finding whether the second step was met.315 The right to a fair trial and, more accurately, the right to be tried by a tribunal established by law, is thus the second fundamental right that the Court relied on to accept an executing state’s refusal to surrender an arrested individual after the right to not be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. As of today, and despite subsequent cases and preliminary references having been brought in front of the Court (which could have allowed for more fundamental rights to be accepted in the context of Art 23(4) EAW FD), only Art 4 and Art 47 of the Charter were used. Most recently, the CJEU issued a preliminary ruling316 (E.D.L.) related to the fundamental right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, as well as the right to health in the context of EAW proceedings. However, the right to health as evoked by the Court, was not that from the Charter (Art 35) and thus constituting a fundamental right, but instead was found in Art 23(4) of the EAW FD.317 The Court also did not consider the right to integrity (Art 3 of the Charter) as having been violated despite its inclusion in the preliminary referral addressed to Luxembourg.318 This ruling shows the Court’s conservative approach to Art 1(3) and Art 23(4) of the EAW FD, presenting the refusal to surrender an arrested individual as a necessarily rare exception to the principle of mutual trust between Member States.319 An in depth analysis of the E.D.L. ruling will be presented in Section 3.1.1. 3.1 EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT 3.1.1 EAW AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS The EAW FD or FD 2002/584/JHA is a simplified cross-border judicial surrender procedure with the aim of replacing previous lengthy extradition tools. Adopted in the aftermath of the 2001 9/11 attacks amid concerns that existing extradition laws were too cumbersome to effectively tackle serious cross-border crimes, the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is regarded as the flagship EU judicial cooperation measure. However, the EAW may have severe implications for persons concerned. For example, the EAW involves the arrest and surrender of a person for the purpose of standing trial or to serve a sentence in a country other than where the person is located. This typically involves detention in the country of arrest, as well as where the person is surrendered to. Because of the long distance in a cross-border setting, people face separation from their families, potential job loss, and may be sent to a country where they have no social ties, support system or do not even speak the language.320 The EAW FD contains a number of references to fundamental rights in its text. These include Recital (10): “The mechanism of the European arrest warrant is based on a high level of confidence between Member States. Its implementation may be suspended only in the event of a serious and persistent breach by one of the Member States of the principles set out in Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union, determined by the Council pursuant to Article 7(1) of the said Treaty with the consequences set out in Article 7(2) thereof.” Recital 12 is a provision common to all four framework decisions (“common recital”): “This Framework Decision respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised 83