Member State. The case essentially considered the principles of mutual trust in the context of EAW proceedings, and how to reconcile this crucial principle of EU law with the reality that prison conditions in some Member States fall below minimum standards, with the standards being so low as to endanger the right not to be subjected to ill-treatment as guaranteed under the ECHR and CFREU. The starting point of the analysis was a recognition of the absolute prohibition of torture, and the obligations that stem from that prohibition. The Court then went on to formulate the following test: Where the executing authority has a concern that the conditions of detention of the issuing State are such that would give rise to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, the executing authority must seek out information from the issuing authority as to the risks to the specific individual concerned. Until information is received that would indicate that there is no risk to the individual concerned, then the execution of the warrant should be deferred. Furthermore, in circumstance where there is undue delay in the receipt of information from the issuing authority, then the proceedings should be discontinued. The Court held that; “that where there is objective, reliable, specific and properly updated evidence with respect to detention conditions in the issuing Member State 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, the executing judicial authority must determine, specifically and precisely, whether there are substantial grounds to believe that the individual concerned by a European arrest warrant, issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence, will be exposed, because of the conditions for his detention in the issuing Member State, to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter, in the event of his surrender to that Member State. 122 The Court went on to find that the executing judicial authority should seek additional information from the issuing authority, and until they are satisfied that there is no such risk to the individual the national judicial authority should postponed executing the warrant. This is an important judgment, as it further elaborates upon the limits of mutual trust, and the onus on the executing authority to take due diligence when executing an EAW. It also highlights the absolute nature of the prohibition contained in Article 3 ECHR and Article 4 CFEU.123 It importantly provides that systemic failures do not necessarily amount to a violation, and that specific evidence of the risk to the individual concerned must be demonstrated before refusing to execute the warrant. In this regard, the judgment refers specifically to the potential sources for consultation when assessing the risk, and refers inter alia to national monitoring bodies, regional and international courts, and monitoring bodies under the aegis of the UN and Council of Europe.124 Finally, the issue of diplomatic assurances was not addressed in the course of the judgment of the court. 122 Joined Cases C‑404/15, Aranyosi and C‑659/15 PPU, Caldӑrӑru [2016] at para 104. 123 Ibid. at paras 85, 86 and 87. 124 Ibid at para 89 and 96. 34