Overall goals and fundamental rights or ministry civil servants – who need such access across the EU at an operational level; • A harmonised approach to checking and assessing fundamental rights concerns in individual cases by judges, prison and probation officials, or ministry civil servants; • A solid monitoring system connected to best practices and incentives for change. This could be based on an EU-encouraged and sponsored enhanced existing monitoring in terms of frequency and particular focus on EU law-relevant aspects. Additionally, such an enhanced system should be linked to incentives, such as linking fund allocation (for example, EU structural funds) to recommendations by monitoring bodies, building on promising practices elsewhere. FRA Opinion on measuring fundamental rights compliance In April 2016, pursuant to a request by the European Parliament, FRA issued an opinion that provided advice on developing “an integrated tool of objective fundamental rights indicators able to measure compliance with the shared values listed in Article 2 TEU based on existing sources of information”. It explored how existing monitoring data and information can be used more systematically to assess compliance with fundamental rights. Relevant monitoring is carried out by the United Nations and the Council of Europe in particular, but also by the EU itself, and Member States certainly monitor performance and situations with various tools, some of which relate to fundamental rights. The opinion concluded that it is indeed possible to draw on existing data and information to make meaningful assessments of fundamental rights compliance. A  case in point relates to detention standards. The opinion was drafted in parallel with this report, and inspires much of this chapter. Source: FRA (2016), Opinion on the development of an integrated tool of objective fundamental rights indicators able to measure compliance with the shared values listed in Article TEU based on existing sources of information Accessibility of data and information Detention conditions are an important factor in developing the trust needed for mutual recognition instruments, such as the three Framework Decisions, to function properly. These conditions are monitored, but more could be done. At each ‘governance level’ – from the United Nations to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the Council of Europe, the  EU, the national and even sub-national level  – a range of monitoring mechanisms with a human rights remit exist.119 Data and information from these mechanisms, particularly of the United Nations and Council of Europe, offer insight into a range of human rights, including relating to detention. These must be drawn on and made available and accessible. The Council of Europe is of particular relevance for the EU, as expressed in the Memorandum of Understanding between the two organisations, in which the EU recognises that “the Council of Europe will remain the benchmark for human rights, the rule of law and democracy in Europe”, and regards the Council of Europe as the Europe-wide reference source for human rights.120 The monitoring of human rights performance carried out through these mechanisms at various levels provides information and analysis. However, not all of these bodies presently produce data and information that can be used for comparisons across EU Member States. Their task is first and foremost to assess the states against applicable standards, which does not necessarily require a modus operandi that enables comparison. Assessments have to be relatively stringent to make it possible to draw comparative conclusions. Some of the monitoring mechanisms do provide for such elements of comparison. Complaints-based mechanisms such as the ECtHR do lend themselves to comparison. It should be underscored, however, that a high number of complaints does not necessarily indicate a greater human rights problem. Instead, it could reveal stronger rights awareness or a better capacity to bring cases ‘to Strasbourg’. At the same time, the proportion of violations of certain rights identified by the ECtHR can point to structural problems, even though the absence of violations in other states could be due to reasons other than the situation there being ‘better’. The ECtHR also issues socalled ‘pilot judgments’ for repetitive types of cases from a particular country that come before the court, which would be a further way of analysing the more systemic problems identified.121 Another monitoring mechanism at the Council of Europe level that generates more comparable assessments is the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), the Council of Europe monitoring body on deprivation of liberty. Following up on its visits, the CPT issues reports that are first shared with the government in question and will be made public at governments’ request. States’ agreement to have the monitoring reports published automatically is a promising sign. 119 For a more comprehensive overview of UN treaty bodies and Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms, see FRA (2012a). 120 Council of Europe and European Union (2007), Memorandum of Understanding between the Council of Europe and the European Union, May 2007, para. 11. 121 ECtHR, Press Unit (2015). 49