The case of Sharifi and others v Italy and Greece,108 which concerned the return of the applicants, who had arrived from Afghanistan to Greece, is a further endorsement of the principles in M.S.S. On arrival from Greece to Italy, in the absence of any legal advice, or without any explanation in a language that they understood, they were returned immediately to Greece where proper reception conditions and procedures were absent. Further, there were concerns that they would be deported to Afghanistan where there was a risk that they would be subjected to torture or ill-treatment. The Court considered the case of M.S.S and the issues raised in respect of the detention conditions in Greece, at that time. They noted the requirement to be compliant with convention rights when implementing Dublin Regulations, and found that there was a breach of Article 3 ECHR, as well as Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, relating to collective expulsion. 2.2. the eaw and challenges to the prevention of ill-treatment The European Commission in its implementation report of 2011, having considered the several ECtHR judgments that had highlighted deficiencies in prisons of EU Member States’, acknowledged that unacceptable detention conditions that reach a minimum level of severity can constitute a violation of Article 3 ECHR. In addition, the Commission confirmed that Article 1(3) of the FD EAW “does not mandate surrender where an executing judicial authority is satisfied, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, that such surrender would result in a breach of a requested person’s fundamental rights arising from unacceptable detention conditions.”109 Indeed Peers notes that “any inability to reject mutual recognition on human rights grounds, on the assumption that the problem will be fixed months later in the issuing State or years later in the ECtHR, would mean that human rights protection in this field would be theoretical and illusory, not real and effective.” 110 In this sense, the previously rather cautious jurisprudence by the CJEU developed over time and essentially in this direction, clearly stipulating in its judgment in Aranyosi and Căldăraru that mutual trust must not result in breach of Art. 4 CFREU/Art. 3 ECHR, as will be outlined in the subsequent chapter. 2.2.1. jurisprudence from the court of justice of the european union In Advocaten voor de Wereld, in the Opinion of Advocate General commented on the critical role of fundamental rights in the context of EAWs, and urged that: “the Court must break its silence and recognise the authority of the Charter of Fundamental Rights as an interpretative tool at the forefront of the protection of the fundamental rights which are part of the heritage of the Member States. That undertaking must be approached with caution and vigour alike, in the full belief that, while the protection of fundamental rights is an essential part of the Community pillar, it is equally indispensable in the context of third pillar, which, owing to the nature of its subject-matter, is capable of affecting the very heart of individual freedom, the foundation of the other freedoms.”111 108 Sharifi and others v Italy and Greece, Application No. 16643/09 (ECtHR, 21 Oct.2014). 109 COM(2011) 175. Report on the implementation since 2007 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States. 110 Peers, EU justice and Home Affairs 2016, page 101. 111 Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocaten voor de Wereld C-303/05 delivered on the 12th December 2006 at para 79. 31