APPLICATION OF THE FRAMEWORK DECISIONS IN MEMBER STATES This problem concerns both cases related to transfer of persons as well as probation measures. Once the person is transferred, it is hard to ensure the person receives the same pharmaceutical or psychological treatment they would be given in a state due to differences in systems.473 This also includes the handling at the border, where states and individuals have no guarantees that support and safeguards are going to be continued throughout the transfer.474 Some actors pointed out that, in practice, it is often difficult to make sure that the detention facility in the executing Member State receives all the necessary information regarding the person concerned, including, for example, their therapy plan/ past achievements, etc. It is based on the individual dedication of the staff involved to contact facilities in other countries to ensure continuity of care. They only get informed of the transfer briefly before the transfer date, which leaves little to no time to adequately prepare and contact the corresponding facility. Lithuania also evoked the absence of a mandatory right to a lawyer in their code of criminal procedure for cases involving cross-border proceedings when they are the requesting state.475 Concerning the EAW FD, at the national level, courts dealing with cross-border cases need to research other states’ systems and standards in order to gather all the necessary information for the execution of an EAW. This notably includes finding information on a legal system, criminal procedure and human rights standards, de jure and de facto. This necessitates access to case-law, to legislation and to contact points, including the competent authorities and the practice in the country regarding international transfers. The lack of accessible data-bases makes this step difficult and leads to inconsistencies in the application of the EU FDs at the national level. Domestic tribunals need to assess what the minimum standards for medical treatment are, and as was pointed out by a Bulgarian national during the regional consultation workshop, such standards vary greatly from state to state. 108 5.3.3 RECOMMENDATIONS • Collect data at the national level, enhance the collection of systematic and disaggregated data in the criminal justice system on suspects, accused, detained, and sentenced persons with intellectual and/ or psychosocial disabilities in cross-border proceedings by integrating this information in national databases (if available) or by setting up new databases. • Collect data and create a database for cross-border purposes, taking into consideration the UNCRPD, GDPR and other human rights standards available at the European level and national level. The database should include disaggregated data on both national legal systems and EU law, as well as information on the state of prisons (such as CPT reports from visits or NGO reports) in accordance with CJEU jurisprudence. • Increase awareness and knowledge, both by the national government and the European Commission, of the TP FD, ESO FD and PAS FD to avoid overuse of the EAW FD and ensure the FD used is most suited to the specific situation of the concerned individual. • Increase knowledge, both by the national government and the European Commission, of the ESO FD and PAS FD to reduce deprivation of liberty as a criminal punishment, particularly unfit for people with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities. • Increase awareness of competent authorities and other relevant actors, both by the national government and the European Commission, of the ESO FD, TP FD and PAS FD (for example, by providing more training, workshops and meetings). • Strengthen the application of the ESO FD and PAS FD in order to reduce deprivation of liberty and ensure judicial cooperation is in line with international human rights, as for defendants and detainees with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities, deprivation of liberty and transfer may be particularly harmful.