Criminal detention and alternatives: fundamental rights aspects in EU cross-border transfers goals, as provided by the two Framework Decisions dealing with alternatives to detention. As indicated, justifying a disproportionate application of pre-trial detention to citizens of other EU Member States with the risk of escape can have discriminatory effects. There is also rather significant divergence among EU Member States when it comes to the types of alternatives to detention, particularly in terms of when and under what conditions they are used, both preand post-trial. FRA’s research shows that authorities can choose from a wide range of alternatives to detention, which can be tailored to the individual circumstances of a case to achieve the best outcome – for example, barring orders to protect victims or medical rehabilitation to treat offenders with addictions. However, these options are applied quite differently across Member States. Some states have limited sentencing options; for example, just over half of the EU Member States have the possibility of conditional sentencing, which postpones the imposition of a sentence in favour of community supervision measures. The availability of such measures offers a de facto second chance to offenders while also deterring reoffending. There is room for EU Member States to use alternative measures both for new and repeat offenders. All Member States offer early conditional release from prison sentences, which allows offenders a chance to reform and reintegrate into society. Some regimes are more restrictive than others, and most states have different rules for release from detention – for example, only for certain types of offences or after a certain period of time. The research also shows that many states have alternative sanctions with the victim in 70 mind, including financial reparations or a formal apology from offender to victim. A more harmonised approach to, and greater use of, alternatives to detention across EU Member States would not only bring practice more in line with international human rights standards but would also facilitate applying the Framework Decisions to their full extent. All this would also reinforce mutual trust between EU Member States. FRA Opinion 6 International and European human rights law requires that pre-trial detention is the exception rather than the rule. To ensure effective implementation of the three Framework Decisions, EU Member States should treat detention as a last resort  – especially at the pre-trial stage, when suspects have not been found guilty. This will also reduce costs, improve detention conditions, and facilitate social rehabilitation. Greater use of alternatives to detention, both pre- and posttrial, must be achieved across EU Member States, with the greatest importance reasonably to be placed on the pre-trial phase. To ensure effective implementation of the three Framework Decisions, the  EU and the Member States must ensure a more harmonised approach across the  EU in terms of when detention is used, what alternatives to detention are in place and when they are used, and what social rehabilitation entails. This would also reinforce mutual trust across EU Member States, which is the basis for effective mutual recognition of judicial decisions.