JUSTICE FOR ALL social environment.383 The need to focus on rehabilitation and not only on the sentence was also highlighted during the consultation workshop by German representatives. The TP, ESO and PAS FDs have, as a goal, to ensure the concerned individual can ultimately be rehabilitated and reintegrated into the community. However, the comparative tables presented above show that for the TP FD, only Italy,384 Bulgaria, Slovenia and Lithuania included a provision on social reintegration in their national law. For the ESO FD, only Austria included such a provision. Finally, on the PAS FD, which is dedicated to alternatives to detention and probation and thus should take social reintegration as a core principle, only Slovenia included in their transposition laws any provisions on rehabilitation. 4.1.2 ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS 4.1.2.1 LEGAL ASSISTANCE Among the different additional safeguards, research has revealed that some states strengthened the right to legal assistance in the context of cross-border proceedings. In respect of the EAW FD, Slovenia reported the obligation for the defendant to have a defence counsel appointed during the entire surrender proceedings, or from the first hearing on the surrender until the execution of the surrender.385 The protection even extends to a right to choose a lawyer from the issuing Member State. The investigating judge then provides the requested person with information received from the competent authority of the issuing state to facilitate the choice of a lawyer, including information on eligibility for free legal aid.386 In Austria, the right to have access to legal aid is guaranteed and defendants who are in a vulnerable position have the right to free representation in (all) interrogations.387 In case of language difficulties, interpreters are available.388 Italy, for its part, ensures that third persons, including family members or consular authorities, can be notified of the EAW as part of the legal aid.389 4.1.2.2 REFUSAL OF THE TRANSFER Finally, a particular additional safeguard observed was the case of refusing the execution of a FD that would lead to a fundamental rights violation in itself. Concerning the TP FD, Slovenia mentioned a complaint received by the national Ombudsperson about a Slovenian national who was prosecuted in Poland.390 It had been established that the sentenced individual had an intellectual and/or psychosocial disability and the question of the person’s mental capacity was also considered. Their parents received information about the execution of the security measure of compulsory psychiatric treatment, notably involving the use of electric shocks. The Ombudsperson, informed by the parents of the individual, contacted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and also the Polish Ombudsman. The person was transferred to Slovenia and the security measure was implemented at the Forensic Psychiatry Unit. The person avoided violent medical interventions but was still detained in a psychiatric unit. 4.2. CHALLENGES WITH REGARD TO TRANSPOSITION 4.2.1 RESTRICTIVE TRANSPOSITION OF FRAMEWORK DECISIONS 4.2.1.1 ABSENCE AND ALTERATION OF SOME PROTECTIVE PROVISIONS Among the shortcomings observed in national transpositions of the four FDs, the first shortcoming is created by the restrictive transpositions of EU law into domestic legislation, notably in the case where provisions have been altered or removed altogether. The research also revealed shortcomings which affect, in particular, persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities who are the subjects of cross-border proceedings. Concerning the ESO FD, national reports highlighted a tendency to leave aside the FDs’ provisions that might concern persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial 95