JUSTICE FOR ALL NATIONAL FRAMEWORK CONCERNING EU CROSS BORDER INSTRUMENTS 02. 2.1. GENERAL Mutual recognition instruments, such as Framework Decisions are not directly applicable. Member States need to transpose them into national law. The Framework Decisions4 relevant for this project were implemented into Austrian national law in the Federal law on judicial cooperation in criminal matters with the Member States of the European Union (EU-JZG).5 Additionally, provisions of the Extradition and Mutual Assistance Act (ARHG)6 apply on a subsidiary basis, unless otherwise stipulated in the EU-JZG. Directly applicable international agreements (such as bilateral or multilateral treaties) are only applicable unless otherwise provided for in the EU-JZG. if and under what conditions the executing state may refuse the execution of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) if the detention conditions in the issuing state threaten to violate the fundamental rights of the person concerned. The provisions of the EU-JZG apply to everyone equally, thus including persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities.7 Persons concerned in EU cross border procedures receive the same treatment as persons concerned in national proceedings.8 While there are no provisions specifically referring to persons with intellectual and/ or psychosocial disabilities, some provisions refer to, for example, therapeutic measures, which are especially relevant for this specific category of accused persons/detainees.9 The CJEU has developed a two-step approach to determine whether the executing state can refuse the execution. First, the executing state must “rely on information that is objective, reliable, specific and properly updated on the detention conditions prevailing in the issuing Member State and that demonstrates that there are deficiencies, which may be systemic or generalised, or which may affect certain groups of people, or which may affect certain places of detention.”11 The information may be based, inter alia, on decisions of international courts, decisions of national courts or decisions, documents and reports of bodies of the Council of Europe (e.g., reports of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT)) or the United Nations. Secondly, the judicial authority must examine to what extent "there are substantial grounds to believe that the individual concerned will be exposed to that risk because of the conditions for his detention envisaged in the issuing Member State".12 The Framework Decisions are based on the principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust between Member States. This implies that Member States, when implementing these Framework Decisions, can and may be required to presume that fundamental rights have been observed by the other Member States.10 However, the CJEU also stated that there are limitations on these principles. In the case of Aranyosi and Caldararu, the CJEU first analysed the relationship between the principle of mutual trust and the protection of fundamental rights. The question arose Since then, this two-stage review approach has been used by the CJEU not only in several decisions on detention conditions,13 but also in a case concerning serious deficiencies in the rule of law, particularly the independence of the courts.14 Most recently, the CJEU ruled that in the absence of systemic or generalised deficiencies in the issuing State, a court of the executing State may not refuse to execute an EAW.15 The Austrian Ministry of Justice adopted internal decrees, calling upon the competent authorities to take these considerations into account.16 17