prisoners across Europe endure and in doing so fortify article 3 ECHR. The lack of data, and information Europe wide on the practical implementation is problematic. More should be done by Member States to collate the information regarding the use of FD TOP, to share experiences and establish best practices in terms of determining upon the appropriate transfer of a prisoner. Greater efforts to ensure a harmonious approach towards providing prisoners with the information so that their views on a potential transfer are informed. The information should include the prison conditions of the executing state and any implication on sentencing and release dates and post release measures. Legal aid should be extended to ensure that appropriate advice is available where necessary and that there is adequate oversight by and access to Courts in order to ensure that FD TOP, with all the significant measures that it contains is implemented in a fundamental rights consistent manner. 3.5. framework ill-treatment: conclusions and recommendations decisions on detention as chances for the prevention of Conclusions In relation to the Framework Decisions that seek to improve the conditions of detention that can reduce the likelihood of a risk of ill-treatment the main issue remains the lack of implementation across the EU, which effects the impact of these Framework Decisions. Practitioners and Judges lack awareness of the existence of alternatives to detention in pre-trial matters, and those that are aware of them, are concerned of the effect on the investigation and prosecution of an individual. Admitting an individual to bail pursuant to the ESO is a discretionary order, and any application must be subject to the normal rigorous considerations as is the case for any bail application. The rights of the accused and the presumption of innocence must be weighed up as against the interests of society and justice. The examples cited about in relation to case of Andrew Symeou contrasted with the UK examples where the ESO was successfully deployed serve as stark reminders of the benefits of alternatives to pre-trial detention. 61