14 Used without regard to the impact on a person’s family or livelihood Our research finds that the EAW continues to be used without due regard to the impact on the person’s family or livelihood. We documented several cases of people being needlessly separated from their families, with spouses, parents and children needing to travel long distances to be able to see their loved ones or, when they cannot afford the cost of the travel, spending months without seeing them. We also documented cases where the use of the EAW pushed people out of the job market or forced the closure of their businesses, because they were not able to work while being held in pre-trial detention abroad. Analysis of whether the use of the EAW is proportionate to the circumstances should occur in the country issuing the EAW. In practice, however, we found that in many countries suspects cannot effectively challenge those decisions. In 2018, we surveyed our Legal Experts Advisory Panel asking whether it is truly possible to challenge the issuance of the EAW in the issuing country and received responses from 12 countries: Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, the Netherlands, Romania and Spain. In only six was it possible to challenge the EAW itself – Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Portugal, and Spain. In the remaining countries it was possible only to challenge the underlying national arrest warrant. In those countries a prosecutor can issue an EAW without judicial oversight. This situation also existed in Belgium until a constitutional challenge ruled it a violation of human rights for a prosecutor to have such a power without the ability to seek review of the prosecutor’s action by a court. The mere ability to challenge the proportionality of the national arrest warrant is insufficient. Arresting or detaining someone in their place of residence is significantly less harmful than arresting a person and transferring them far away from their home, jobs and families. As the cases highlighted in our research show, an EAW may be disproportionate even when a national arrest warrant is a proportionate measure. Putting human rights at the heart of the EAW Disproportionate use leads to families getting ripped apart needlessly Case study Sara Surrendered from Portugal to Spain Sara had a four-year-old daughter and a new born baby when she was arrested in Romania under an EAW. She was extradited to Spain, and held in prison with her baby in Madrid, taking part in her trial over video-link. An agreement was reached, no evidence was examined, Sara pleaded guilty and was granted provisional release the same day. The EAW was issued for a trial to be held. Yet the trial was held without the need for Sara to be physically present, as it was carried out via videoconference. No evidence was ever examined. This highlights that less onerous alternative measures could have been adopted that would not have affected Sara's family situation. “I was very worried about my daughter, who had never been separated from me (…) I did not see her while I was in prison (…) my parents came to see me once in prison, travelling from Alicante was a major issue for them.”