On July 9, 2019, the Second Section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) released its judgment in the Romeo Castaño v. Belgium case. The ECtHR held unanimously that Belgium had not upheld its obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) when it decided not to execute European Arrest Warrants (EAWs) issued by Spanish authorities seeking surrender of an individual who had been charged with terrorism and murder and who was located in Belgium. In 1981, Colonel Ramón Romeo was murdered by an ETA commando. In 2013, one of the suspects, N.J.E., was arrested in Belgium pursuant to EAWs issued by Spain. Belgium did not execute the EAWs due to concerns that the suspect would have been subjected to human rights violations in violation of ECHR Article 3. This concern was based upon a Report issued in 2011 by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture in which the Committee criticized the Spanish legal system for issues of, inter alia, incommunicado detention and torture and other forms of ill treatment. Spanish authorities issued another EAW in 2015 and Belgium again refused to execute on similar grounds, citing the UN Human Rights Committee’s Concluding Observations on the Sixth Periodic Report of Spain issued in 2015, which again raised issues of incommunicado detention. The children of Colonel Romeo filed an Application with the ECtHR alleging violations of ECHR Article 6, but the ECtHR Second Section decided to focus on violations of Article 2. The Court held that the Belgian authorities’ refusal to execute the EAWs was not legitimate because Belgium relied on findings set forth in international reports but did not conduct an individual assessment of the case at hand. The Court found that Belgium must give a sufficient factual basis for such a refusal, noting that the EU Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures Between States and the Belgian law implementing it would have permitted Belgian authorities to request additional information regarding the proposed detention conditions for the suspect to determine if such conditions would have violated ECHR Article 3.