In order to reconcile the principle of mutual trust with fundamental rights protection and the strengthening of the rights of suspects and accused persons in EU Member States, a Roadmap on Procedural Rights was introduced in 2009 to establish common minimum standards in EU Member States. The Roadmap includes as priority measures, with the possibility of adding other rights, the right to interpretation and translation, the right to information, the right to legal aid and legal advice, before and at trial, the right for a detained person to communicate with family members, employers and consular authorities, children’s rights, the right to protection for vulnerable suspects as well as a Green Paper on pre-trial detention, and the Directive on the presumption of innocence. In order to discuss the fundamental rights compliant implementation of mutual recognition instruments within the ASFJ, the key principles and instruments shall at first be described briefly in this chapter, in order to then enter in a more in-depth discussion and analysis of current challenges with regard to law and practice. 1.2. mutual recognition The principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions in order to simplify extraditions (referred to as “surrenders” following the adoption of the FD on EAW) between EU Member States was stipulated as a priority in order to foster judicial cooperation in criminal matters when the AFSJ was established.16 Accordingly, in its Communication on the subject, the EU Commission specified that “mutual recognition is widely understood as being based on the thought that while another state may not deal with a certain matter in the same or even a similar way as one’s own state, the results will be such that they are accepted as equivalent to decisions by one’s own state […]. Based on this idea of equivalence and the trust it is based on, the results the other state has reached are allowed to take effect in one’s own sphere of legal influence. On this basis, a decision taken by an authority in one state could be accepted as such in another state, even though a comparable authority may not even exist in that state, or could not take such decisions, or would have taken an entirely different decision in a comparable case […] Recognising a foreign decision in criminal matters could be understood as giving it effect outside of the state in which it has been rendered.”17 Consequently, effective mutual recognition presumes that a Member State recognises and executes judicial decisions in criminal matters issued by another Member State without review. In this sense, mutual recognition creates extraterritoriality, as the decision of the authority in one Member States can be enforced across its borders. In its 2001 Programme of measures, the EU Commission placed emphasis on the broad scope of the principle and clarified that it applies to pre-trial, trial and post-trial decisions. At the same time, it is acknowledged that the principle is subject to limits and thus that refusal grounds do exist.18 The effective implementation of the principle of mutual recognition is based on a high level of mutual trust between EU Member States. 16 European Council and Commission, Action Plan of the Council and the Commission on how best to implement the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice (3. Dec. 1998) OJ 1999/C 19/1. The first official reference was in 1998 during the Cardiff Council presidency conclusions. Specifically in terms of improving mutual recognition and introducing it in the area of cooperation in criminal matters. Thereafter, it was elaborated in the Tampere Presidency conclusions 1999, and then Mutual Recognition Implementation plan 2000. 17 European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on mutual recognition of final decisions in criminal matters, COM (2000) 495 final, 26 July 2000, p.4 [hereinafter: European Commission, COM (2000) 495 final]. 18 European Union, Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters, OJ 2001/C 12/10, pp.10-12 [hereinafter: EU, Programme of measures]. 17