INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT The findings presented in this comparative report are a product of research that was conducted as part of a two-year project (2023-2024) co-funded by the European Commission (EC), led by the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Fundamental and Human Rights (Austria) in cooperation with the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (Bulgaria), Dortmund University of Applied Sciences and Arts (Germany), Antigone (Italy), Mental Health Perspectives (Lithuania) and Peace Institute (Slovenia). Within the EU, the need for better coordinated judicial cooperation between the Member States grew significantly during the past two decades. In order to facilitate and simplify judicial cooperation in criminal proceedings, the EC has adopted the following FDs: 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant; 2008/909/JHA on the Transfer of Prisoners, 2009/829/JHA on the European Supervision Order, and 2008/947/JHA on Probation and Alternative Sanctions. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarified in various judgments that the application of mutual recognition instruments must not lead to a violation of fundamental rights5 and that the respect for fundamental rights is vital to build mutual trust between the Member States and ensure the good functioning of cross-border cooperation. In 2021, the EU recognised the challenges faced by vulnerable adults who are suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings, which may hinder their exercise of procedural rights.6 It called for comprehensive examination of procedural safeguards for vulnerable adults, identification of uniform criteria for determining vulnerability and full and effective access to justice for all European citizens, especially in cross-border situations. Additionally, the EU has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons 16 with Disabilities (UNCRPD), symbolising a significant step in setting minimum standards for the rights of persons with disabilities. Furthermore, in 2022, the EC adopted a Recommendation on procedural rights of suspects and accused persons subject to pre-trial detention and on material detention conditions.7 The Recommendation specifically refers to the UNCRPD and addresses persons with disabilities. While previous projects have analysed the implementation of EU Framework Decisions into domestic law, little research has been conducted on the situation of defendants and detainees with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities and the specific challenges that they may face in cross-border proceedings. The current project thus analyses the implementation of the abovementioned FDs into national law with respect to the rights of defendants and detainees with intellectual and/ or psychosocial disabilities. At the same time, the research includes an assessment of the situation of defendants and detainees with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities within the national systems, and measures compliance with international, regional and national standards, as national grievances may hinder cross-border cooperation. The project covers procedural safeguards, treatment of persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities during deprivation of liberty, alternatives to detention and probation measures. METHODOLOGY The findings and recommendations contained in this comparative report are based on extensive research on the national level conducted in Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Italy, Lithuania and Slovenia (partner countries). The research included desk research as well as interviews with national experts representing all relevant stakeholders, including (former) detained persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities, members of the judiciary, lawyers,