JUSTICE FOR ALL any ESO application and found there were none on orders related to persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities because there were no cases on ESO to begin with.468 It was also expressly stated during the regional consultation workshop that the non-application of the ESO FDs directly came from the lack of knowledge surrounding it. This general lack of knowledge leads to cross-border proceedings almost entirely relying on the EAW FD instead of any of the three others, as was additionally pointed out in the Lithuanian research. They presented this situation as a particularly problematic issue, as the ESO FD should be applied as the alternative, ensuring people do not spend time in detention unnecessarily.469 Regarding the PAS FD, it was found that, among the three FDs, the PAS FD was reported as being the least known and the least relied on. A participant at the regional consultation workshop stated that, before even knowing about the FDs, actors needed to have better knowledge about probation and alternatives to detention at the national level in general. They added that some states barely provided for any forms of alternatives at all to begin with. The research also showed that, because of said lack of awareness, certain practices were observed at the national level. Concerning the EAW FD, it was pointed out during the regional consultation workshop that courts had a tendency to primarily rely on the EAW to transfer a defendant, although other FD proceedings could be more suitable, especially in cases involving persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities. For instance, the issuing of an EAW could be replaced by the issuing of an ESO in order to ensure that the individual concerned remains in the country where they have the strongest ties, including family or carers, which would be a better choice for persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities. It was suggested that the basis of such a choice between FDs would be the assessment of the individual concerned, including medical and therapeutic assessment. Once such a basis is available, only then can judges choose which proceeding is most suitable. A Portuguese participant at the regional consultation workshop added that some states used the EAW as a tool to deport foreign people and save money. Regarding the PAS FD, it was reported that the lack of knowledge can be identified as one of the reasons why it is rarely used, a tendency observed in several states. Some competent authorities do not apply the PAS FD thoroughly like in Slovenia, where a case was identified involving a Slovenian national who wished the probation measure to be implemented in Sweden where he had lived and the latter rejecting the possibility of transfer without any justification.470 5.3.2 LACK OF AWARENESS OF THE DIFFERENT NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEMS Another problem that was reported were the difficulties accessing and/or understanding other states’ legal systems in the context of cross-border proceedings. Indeed, even though the FDs are EU competences, criminal law is a matter of the State.471 Following this logic, each Member State has a different system which leads to a fragmentation of the proceedings, sometimes even leading to blatant incompatibility. Austria mentioned the different regulations on the specific issue of criminal legal capacity concerning persons with intellectual and/ or psychosocial disabilities between Austria and Bulgaria. The report notably used the example of a case whereby Austria requested the transfer of an accused person with a disability, but Bulgarian courts found that he was not responsible for his crime and thus refused the transfer. In the end, the Sofia Appellate Court annulled the decision of the Regional Court, allowing the extradition of the Bulgarian citizen to Austria. Yet, this example shows the obstacles that can be found in the way of cross-border proceedings.472 Findings from Austria, as well as participants from the regional consultation workshop, also highlighted the issue of continuity of the criminal proceedings once the cross-border part is over and touched specifically on the issue of treatment. 107