Criminal detention and alternatives: fundamental rights aspects in EU cross-border transfers with disabilities. Transgender detainees also require urgent attention; they have received less attention in the context of detention even though they face particular problems that need to be highlighted. The discussion on these groups provides examples of how the specific needs of vulnerable persons can be protected. It should also be noted that individuals may fit into more than one group – for example, women with disabilities. The UNODC Handbook on Prisoners with Special Needs notes that such individuals are at a particularly high risk of manipulation, violence, sexual abuse and rape.179 It is therefore important to consider the holistic impact of detention on each individual while examining what alternatives to pre- and post-trial detention are in place for particular groups. This chapter first explores the applicable UN and Council of Europe standards, together with relevant EU legal provisions. FRA’s research findings are then analysed, offering comparisons of alternatives to pre- and posttrial detention in each EU Member State. A general overview is offered with regard to transgender detainees, with specific examples from select EU Member States. The Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners provides in Article 6 (3) that, where an issuing state considers it necessary in view of the sentenced person’s age or physical or mental condition, their legal representative shall be given an opportunity to state an opinion. The two other decisions do not address the topic of applying special policies in cases involving especially vulnerable persons. According to the research findings, very few states include special provisions securing the rights of vulnerable individuals in their laws implementing the Framework Decisions. Legislation in Belgium180 and Spain181 provides for mandatory legal representation for children and people with mental disorders. In Bulgaria, the consular service of the national embassy is asked for assistance when a person seems to have special needs.182 179 UNODC (2009), p. 45. 180 Belgium, Act related to the application of the mutual recognition principle to custodial sentence or measure deprivative of liberty pronounced in a European Union Member State (Loi relative à l’application du principe de reconnaissance mutuelle aux peines ou mesures privatives de liberté prononcées dans un Etat membre de l’Union européenne/Wet inzake de toepassing van het beginsel van wederzijdse erkenning op de vrijheidsbenemende straffen of maatregelen uitgesproken in een lidstaat van de Europese Unie), 15 May 2012, Art. 33, paras. 1 and 4; Belgium, Legal counsels for Legalia. 181 Spain, Law 23/2014 of 20 November on mutual recognition of criminal judgments in the European Union, Art. 67.3. 182 Bulgaria, Supreme Prosecution Office of Cassation (2015), Letter No. 5676/2015 to the Center for the Study of Democracy. 72 In Croatia183 and France,184 legal guardians are present and heard during proceedings. In Italy, children are not subject to transfer. In Ireland, in case of any doubt, an assessment of mental capacity is carried out. In some states, special regulations regarding a child’s participation in legal proceedings are also applicable in transfer proceedings. For example, in Cyprus, there is an obligation for legal representation. In Croatia, the assistance of pedagogues, social workers and psychologists is foreseen; however, the law implementing the Framework Decisions is silent on this matter. Additionally, according to practitioners from some states (Austria, Cyprus, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden), transfers of certain vulnerable individuals hardly happen in practice and, when they do, each transfer is treated individually. UNODC Handbook on dealing with foreign detainees The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has published a  Handbook on Prisoners with Special Needs, covering the needs of different groups of prisoners who have a particularly vulnerable status in prisons. One chapter  is exclusively dedicated to prisoners who are foreign nationals. Although the handbook focuses on prisoners, alternative measures to detention are stressed throughout the publication as being the most adequate form of rehabilitative justice for people in situations of vulnerability. The handbook notes that, in detention, “their requirements can rarely be met and […] their situation is likely to deteriorate”. Due to their vulnerability in detention, imprisonment amounts to a disproportionately harsh punishment. Therefore, the handbook includes suggestions relating to possible legislative reforms and the use of community sanctions and measures as alternatives to imprisoning vulnerable people when they do not pose a threat to public safety. In addition to concerns about increasingly punitive measures being adopted against foreign nationals in many countries, foreign nationals are also at a disadvantage following detention. 183 Croatia, The Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters with the EU Member States, (Zakon o pravosudnoj suradnji s državama članicama Europske unije), Art. 105 (3). 184 France, Code of Criminal Procedure (Code de procédure pénale), 2 March 1959, Art. 728-17.