JUSTICE FOR ALL The partner countries have, however, reported an eclectic state of affairs at the domestic level on the matter. States like Lithuania419 and Slovenia420 do not offer better safeguards on the necessity to ensure a person with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities has given their informed consent on the proceedings. The report from Lithuania stated that judges could intervene when they believe the defendant is not understanding their situation, which remains an arbitrary decision not emanating from a binding legislation. It was notably pointed out that a large proportion of detainees, when they are interviewed and are given explanations on the EAW FD, still do not understand their situation fully with or without a disability. An expert interviewed in the context of the project stated that individuals most of the time “do not understand the seriousness of the consequences of their signatures or consent given to certain procedures.”421 Lithuania also evoked the Letter of Rights given to defendants to explain their rights and their possibility to refuse the transfer, stating it was not accessible, even for people who are not in a situation of vulnerability.422 This issue was also stressed by Slovenia, where the legislation stipulates that defendants need information on the EAW procedure but does not mention any obligation to provide individuals in a vulnerable position accessible forms and documents.423 Lithuania also reported that a distinction is made on consent but not on the vulnerability of the defendant. The distinction is made between consent given in the context of general criminal proceedings and consent given in the context of an EAW. Although the latter is usually faster and easier to give, it is then followed by a hearing during which judges check whether the defendant understands what they are agreeing to and to verify that the consent is genuine.424 On the other side of the spectrum, Italy showed that the requested person could consent to their surrender both at the validation hearing and at the hearing for the coercive measures.425 4.3.1.2 WHEN CONSENT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE LEGISLATION In the case where consent by the individual for a transfer is not provided for at the national level de jure, the research conducted by partner countries showed that the need to ensure that persons with intellectual and/ or psychosocial disabilities could provide genuine and informed consent was felt by relevant actors. The research thus shows how consent was sought de facto. Concerning the TP FD, following Art 6, consent to transfer is not a requirement in several situations, including when the judgement is forwarded to the Member State of the defendant’s nationality; to the Member State to which the sentenced person will be deported once they are released from the enforcement of the sentence on the basis of an expulsion or deportation order included in the judgement or in a judicial or administrative decision or any other measure consequential to the judgement; and to the Member State to which the sentenced person has fled or otherwise returned in view of the criminal proceedings pending against them in the issuing State or following the conviction in that issuing state.426 In the case where the defendant has an intellectual and/ or psychosocial disability, however, consent is of particular importance. If consent is not an actual requirement, other safeguards need to be put in place to adapt the proceedings to a vulnerable group. Italy has pointed out that, if defendants have good legal representation, their voices would be better heard and consent would be more seriously taken into account despite the lack of an obligation to obtain it before a transfer.427 Finally, Lithuania has reported that, even though the TP procedure does not provide for exceptions or special application requirements for persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities, judges verify the genuineness of the consent of the convicted person by holding court hearings.428 However, Bulgaria presented a case where the consent of the defendant was not taken into consideration despite their vulnerability, notably because of the absence of any domestic legislation requiring consent be given.429 It involved an individual who was not present at the court hearing and did not express an opinion then. From the declaration of the person attached to the notification from Austria (the State transferring 99