drawing on existing international, European, and national monitoring reports”371 more accessible. FRA are due to start consultations on how a user-friendly tool, that would support judicial authorities when looking for information in their decision on a surrender, might look like. Throughout interviews, workshops and conferences, there was a recurring theme as to what was needed on the ground for better fundamental rights based implementation of the Framework Decisions on detention These included easily accessible information as to contact points within EU Member States, greater information on prison and detention conditions, and guidance on the practical application of the Framework Decisions and the exact steps that should be taken to ensure that procedures are carried out without delay. Further clarity has also been sought on the type of information that is required before a surrender, and Aranyosi II should provide some more detail in terms of the level of detail relating to prison conditions required in the case of a surrender sought for the purpose of investigating an alleged offence. The existing network of organisations discussed above are best placed to help Member States navigate the implementation of EU Framework Decisions and to foster dialogue between relevant actors. In particular, the EU could consider establishing annual working meetings with CPT and SPT and other actors to discuss common issues. 4.4. eurojust Eurojust was created with a view to establishing a judicial cooperation unit in a bid to enhance solidarity and cross-border cooperation. A precursor to the current Eurojust, Pro-Eurojust was established in 2000. Much like the development of the EAW resulting from the attacks on September 11th 2001, the fight against terrorism and borderless crime saw the development of Eurojust as a unit dedicated to judicial cooperation and coordination. It has continued to grow and develop, engaging also with non EU actors. Recital 1 of Council Decision setting up Eurojust notes that “It is necessary to improve judicial cooperation between the Member States further, in particular in combating forms of serious crime often perpetrated by transnational organisations.”372 To this end, Article 32 of Council Decision 202/187 provides specifically that Eurojust may also make proposals for the improvement of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. In essence, Eurojust works to coordinate and assist national investigations and prosecutions, to improve cooperation between national authorities through the support of mutual recognition instruments.373 The support in cases of cross-border criminal procedures is of particular use when disputes or issues surrounding jurisdiction arise, and Eurojust can intervene to settle disputes.374 Eurojust works to facilitate the execution of EAWs and the exchange of information between national authorities, clarity’s legal requirements, advises on the drafting of EAWs, and reporting on breaches of time limits.375 Article 7, as amended by the 2009 Council Decision, elaborates on the role of Eurojust in the support of judicial cooperation amongst EU Member States. It provides that: 371 The quote refers to one of FRA’s recommendations to provide such information to Member States. See FRA, Criminal detention and alternatives: fundamental rights aspects in EU cross-border transfers, FRA Opinion 4, p. 12. 372 Council Decision of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime available at http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/doclibrary/Eurojust-framework/ejdecision/Eurojust%20Decision%20%28Council%20Decision%202002-187-JHA%29/Eurojust-Council-Decision-2002-187-JHA-EN.pdf. 373 Peers, EU justice and Home Affairs 2016, page 254. 374 Ibidem. at page 255. 375 Council of the European Union, Report on Eurojust’s casework in the field on the European Arrest Warrant 26 May 2014 at page3. 104