EU instruments: The Framework Decisions without verification of the act’s double criminality; other categories of offences can be added under certain circumstances. Additionally, the executing state can recognise measures related to other offences if they are criminalised in that state (Article 14). The Framework Decision also leaves the opportunity for the non-recognition of measures (Article 15). Following recognition, the domestic law in the executing state applies to the monitoring of the measure (Article 16). However, it is for the competent authority in the issuing state to decide about renewal, review, withdrawal and modification of the measure as well as about issuing an arrest warrant. If an arrest warrant has been issued, the executing state should surrender a person in accordance with the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (Articles 18 and 21). The authorities in both states should remain in contact and information concerning – for example – a breach of a measure should immediately be forwarded to the issuing state. Similarly, information about any modification of a measure should immediately be forwarded to the executing state (Article 19). 1.5. Council of Europe and United Nations building blocks The three instruments, in particular the two concerned with post-trial measures, build on and relate to work under the auspices of the Council of Europe and the United Nations. The Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons of 21 March 1983, a precursor to the EU Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners, establishes that sentenced persons may be transferred only to their state of nationality and only with their consent and that of the states involved.31 The convention does not oblige states to co-operate, but only provides a framework should both states wish to initiate a transfer.32 The Additional Protocol to the Convention of 18 December 1997 provides for two instances when consent of the sentenced person is not required: when the person has fled the sentencing state to go to the state of nationality, and when the person is subject to expulsion or deportation as a consequence of the sentence.33 Although these instruments have been ratified by the majority of Council of Europe member states, their success rate is relatively low, with only around half of the requests by a state for transfer – or even less – leading to an effective transfer.34 31 Council of Europe, Convention on the transfer of sentenced persons, CETS No. 112, 1983. 32 Klip, A. (2012), p. 414. 33 Council of Europe, Additional protocol to the convention on the transfer of sentenced persons, CETS No. 167, 1997. 34 Goeth-Flemmich, B. (2013), p. 10. The Schengen members decided to overcome the difficulties in applying these instruments by introducing the notion of “forced transfer” in the 1990 Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA).35 Consent is accordingly not necessary if the person has deliberately sought to frustrate the judicial process by fleeing from justice or in case the sentence includes expulsion or deportation once the sentence is completed. Even though the CISA Convention was initially formulated outside the Community legal framework, the Amsterdam Treaty integrated the Schengen legislation into the EU framework.36 On the occasion of the 30th anniversary (2013) of the 1983 Convention, the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on the Operation of European Conventions on Co-operation in Criminal Matters (PC-OC) devoted a special session to the functioning of this convention and its protocol, which concluded that there was a need to improve the functioning of both instruments.37 Furthermore, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted on 18 November 2014 a report with recommendations to prevent abusive use of Article 12 of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, which recognises that state parties have a sovereign right to grant pardons and amnesties to persons sentenced to imprisonment.38 PACE underscored the importance of applying the convention in good faith and, in interpreting its provisions, adhering to the principles of the rule of law, in particular in transfer cases that might have political or diplomatic implications. In addition, the European Convention on the Supervision of Conditionally Sentenced or Conditionally Released Offenders39 of 30 November 1964, another Council of Europe treaty, focusses on the mutual assistance necessary for the social rehabilitation of offenders given suspended sentences or released conditionally. However, only 13 EU Member States are parties (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden) with, in some cases, numerous 35 Official Journal of the European Union (2000), The Schengen acquis as referred to in Article 1 (2) of Council Decision 1999/435/EC of 20 May 1999, OJ L 239, 22 September 2000, Chapter 5, Art. 68 and 69. 36 Library of the European Parliament (2013), p. 3. 37 Council of Europe, Special session on the transfer of sentenced persons, ETS 112 and 167, 27 November 2013. 38 Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) (2014), Resolution 2022 (2014) on the measures to prevent abusive use of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (ETS No. 112), 18 November 2014. 39 Council of Europe, European Convention on the Supervision of Conditionally Sentenced or Conditionally Released Offenders, ETS No. 51, 30 November 1964. 31