Overall goals and fundamental rights Additionally, Belgium has refused a couple of transfers because of a lack of reintegration prospects for the persons concerned.106 Hungary has refused some transfers because there was no connection between the sentenced person and the executing state.107 Slovakia has also refused to execute several judgments – in cases where the condition of criminality on both sides was not fulfilled, the time limit had passed, or executing the sanction was not possible under the laws of the Slovak Republic. One of the cases concerned an Austrian court judgment that sentenced a mother to imprisonment together with her child. In Slovakia, a child cannot be sent to prison, so the transfer was refused because the judgment conflicted with Slovakia’s legal order. Slovakia has also refused several requests to execute judgments delivered by German judicial authorities. These concerned persons sentenced to detention in detention centres; as such centres do not exist in Slovakia, the state was not able to execute these judgments. 108 Ireland seems to refuse transfers as executing state frequently. In respect of prisoners requesting transfers into Ireland, grounds for refusal most commonly fall under one of three categories. First, the transfer may be refused because there are not sufficient family ties in Ireland to merit the person’s transfer back to the country.109 Second, the lack of a similar sentence in Ireland may result in a refusal.110 For example, prisoners from the United Kingdom may not be transferred back to Ireland because there is no equivalent sentence to that imposed in the United Kingdom, although they are not prohibited from applying.111 A third issue – in the context of Irish prisoners in the United Kingdom – is when a prisoner might be released ‘on license.’ No such regime exists in Ireland. The case of Sweeney v. Governor of Loughan House112 involved a defendant on whom the United Kingdom had imposed a 16-year sentence, half of which he was supposed to serve in the community. In Ireland, he was released after serving 8 years in prison because the country has no equivalent to the ‘on license’ regime. As a result of this precedent, there appears, according to anecdotal evidence, to be a freeze on transfers from the United Kingdom into Ireland.113 Meanwhile, the United Kingdom has refused some transfers from abroad based on less than six months being left to serve, as permitted pursuant to 106 Belgium, Representative of Legalia. 107 Hungary, Representative of the Ministry of Justice. 108 Slovakia, Representative of the Criminal legislation department in the Ministry of Justice. 109 Ireland, Representative of the Irish Prison Service. 110 Ireland, Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act, 17 July 1995, Section 7 (5). 111 Irish Council for Prisoners Overseas. 112 Irish Supreme Court (IESC) (2014), Sweeney v. Governor of Loughan House Open Centre, IESC 42, 3 July 2014. 113 Ireland, Representative of the Irish Council for Prisoners Overseas. Article 9 (1) (h) of the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners.114 Regarding the Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions, only four states have recorded refusals. The Czech Ministry of Justice reported cases where the persons were not found on the territory of the Czech Republic and it was not possible to deliver the judgments or start execution.115 The Netherlands refused to recognise a few probation judgments where there was not enough evidence that the sentenced persons resided in, or were otherwise connected with, the Netherlands.116 Similarly, in Ireland, refusals to supervise probation orders in the state will generally be based on the lack of sufficient family ties. Generally, if there are sufficient family ties, a transfer will go ahead. When no direct equivalent alternative to detention is available in Ireland – for example, Ireland does not commonly impose electronic monitoring, something which is common in England and Wales – a pragmatic and constructive approach is taken and a coherent (though not identical) sentence is usually agreed on. The authorities come to an informal arrangement for the order to be completed in the other jurisdiction.117 The only state that seems to have records of refusing to execute the Framework Decision on the ESO is Hungary; however, no further details are available. 2.4. Visions for improved mutual trust through enhanced monitoring and incentives Mutual recognition only works well with a sufficient level of trust between Member States. The necessary foundation for establishing, maintaining or enhancing trust includes legal, judicial, penitentiary, probationary, and even social systems that are at least relatively comparable. How these systems operate must be clear and transparent. Effective communication is essential for cooperation, both in terms of the means of communications used and the standard of language. Is the ‘school English’ of a German judge or prison official sufficient to communicate effectively with an Irishman about the alternatives to detention or the comparative elements of the sanctioning systems in Germany and Ireland? Are interpreters available and providing sufficiently high quality services for an exchange to be fully understood in both directions, i.e., between the German officials and the 114 United Kingdom, Representative of NOMS. 115 Czech Republic, Representative of the Ministry of Justice. 116 Netherlands, Representative of the Centre for International Legal Aid. 117 Ireland, Representative of the Irish Probation Service. 47