JUSTICE FOR ALL already existing expert statement describing a possible danger.485 This jurisprudence goes beyond what the Italian court asked the CJEU in the E.D.L. case,486 which only dealt with the possible danger found on the basis of an expert statement. The German jurisprudence rather focused on the general obligation to investigate potential violations in the executing country. In this sense, Austria, Germany and Lithuania were observed to have turned the fundamental rights’ respect presumption into a fundamental rights’ violation presumption in certain cases. As previously mentioned, Germany’s courts will sometimes intervene in the proceedings but not to ensure the interests of the defendant are protected. Rather, judges will focus on the application of the punishment in other states. German judges have a tendency to fear that the defendant will no longer be punished to the extent provided for in the sentence after a transfer.487 This tendency runs contrary to the mutual trust and mutual recognition principles. 5.4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS In Slovenia however, the tendency lies more towards the respect of the presumption, as potential fundamental rights violations are not sought by the judges but left to the defence to bring up, which leads to an uneven scrutiny towards fundamental rights on the territory.488 • At the regional level: the EJN or Eurojust could take a bigger coordinating and advisory role to ensure better communication and cooperation between Member States and address the issue of mistrust. Domestic courts will thus have a tendency to disregard the presumption of fundamental rights’ respect either by creating a presumption of fundamental rights’ violations or by not trusting that other States will enforce the prescribed sentence they selected. These two identified reasons not to transfer both run contrary to the principles of mutual trust and mutual recognition. • At the regional level: strengthen cooperation and communication on all levels, including not only in respect of competent authorities in both the issuing and executing countries but also lawyers, probation officers, psychiatrists and other medical personnel, NPMs, etc. • At the regional level: institutionalise/ formalise channels of communication and cooperation between all actors, including the judiciary, attorneys, forensic-psychiatrists, extra-mural facilities as well as after care facilities and probation agencies (e.g., by providing an EU-wide platform and forum for exchange). • At the regional level: consider setting up networking events that could ensure that actors from different Member States are able to share their experiences and learn from one another about their jurisdictions, good practices, and common challenges. • At the national level: ensure a common approach on application of standards in all cases by way of regular exchange between competent authorities, especially in federal states. • At the regional level: Mainstream the collaboration between Prosecutors’ offices and NHRIs when confronted with cases where fundamental rights violations are a risk. 111