to manage prisons in a way that will allow states to meet their basic obligations to the prisoners in their care.”225 Why then, one might wonder, does such a potentially positive FD remain so underutilised? Beside the already mentioned lack of awareness about the instrument itself and the necessary steps and procedures to actually apply it, including the question of bureaucracy and costs, a representative from the FRA posited in one of the workshops held during the project that it could also be a lack of incentive, that prosecutors once they have the accused in custody or at least within their territory are reluctant to let them go, either because investigators might require to question them again or just on account of the fear that once returned to their Member State it might be difficult to ensure their return. The priority of the prosecutor lies in the investigation and prosecution of an alleged offence. Other possible explanations, as to the lack of use of the ESO were advanced during the final conference. Firstly, it was suggested that there is a lack of an actual belief in the presumption of innocence. Secondly a change in focus from social rehabilitation to social protection. Linked to this point is the concern among judges for the backlash that they might face when admitting people on bail as opposed to where pre-trial detention measures are applied. Judges have experienced pressure exerted by the media and members of the public in cases where pre-trial detention is not used. Addressing the concerns linked to the ESO and its practical application If these concerns are correct, then it needs to be considered how to strengthen and improve the ESO’s practical application and thereby give meaning to the presumption of innocence, often described as the golden thread in criminal proceedings. Many judges in the course of this project explained that while there are in place considerable training opportunities surrounding the application of the EAW, more can be done to raise awareness amongst judges and practitioners on other FD on detention. Furthermore, it would be useful tools to aid their practical implementation by providing guidance on the practical application, e.g. through the issuance of handbooks. With regard to the role of practitioners, the Directive on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest explicitly sets out under Article 4.4, for right of access of a lawyer to places of detention.226 This is a further safeguard that will serve to enhance the fundamental rights implementation of Framework Decisions on detention Additionally, it might help to use existing or build new networks in order to facilitate cross-country exchange on the application of the ESO. Last but not least, there is perhaps a need to educate members of the public on the risks of pre-trial detention, as well as its corollary - namely the long term benefits for society where alternatives to detention are deployed. 225 The UN Handbook of Basic Principles and Promising Practices on Alternative to imprisonment Available at https://www.unodc.org/pdf/criminal_justice/Handbook_of_Basic_Principles_and_Promising_Practices_on_Alternatives_to_Imprisonment.pdf at Page 4. 226 Art. 4.4. provides: that ‘The lawyer shall have the right to check the conditions in which the suspect or accuse person is detained and to this end shall have access to the place where the person is detained. 57