Criminal detention and alternatives: fundamental rights aspects in EU cross-border transfers Alternatives to custodial measures to promote rehabilitation and reduce recidivism ”Custodial measures should be avoided for less serious crimes. This should be done in order to promote rehabilitation and reduce recidivism,” says Nils Öberg, Director-General of the Swedish Prison and Probation Service. As he notes: ”A sanctioning system serves several purposes: punishment, deterrence, and credibility of the legal system. Punishment should also be executed in ways so as to reduce the risk of new criminality. [...] A  well-balanced consideration of punishment and rehabilitation is needed. It is thus unfortunate that policy debates are about making longer punishments even longer. We need to talk more about short sentences and alternatives, such as fines, conditional release, supervision and special care. [...] Incentives for the sentenced person to actively engage with the established rehabilitation plan during shorter sentences diminish in favour of simply serving the short prison time that often remains after deducted pre-trial detention. For constructive measures such as treatment, support, influence and control to be effective, apart from resources and competence, also time is needed. [...] There is good scientific support for non-custodial sentences to be more effective in this regard – and such sanctions can be made longer, more nuanced and adjusted to individual needs and every-day life. In 2016 and 2017, Sweden will reinforce efforts with four steps to support alternaties to imprisonment: 1. New ’conversational’ method that has proven effective in Canada (called STICS, Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision), aimed at addressing criminality; 2. An app for persons subjected to alternatives to detention is being developed, with reminders for regular visits to phsyciatric or addiction treatment, for instance. There is also a  pilot project for young offenders with supervision via videolink. 3. Stricter policy on non-compliance – if conditions for early release or alternatives to pr-trial detention are not complied with, the consequen­ ces will be clearer, faster and more forceful. 62 4. More focused work on preventing recidivism and improving reintegration, through, for instance, enhanced capacity to make correct assessments of risks, needs, and receptivity of released persons. In addition, educational and information material is launched, aimed at local and appeals courts to increase awareness of options and limitations of different alternative sentence measures. It is the intention that this will lead to closer dialogue and cooperation with the courts through these efforts. The perspective is simple. People who have commited crimes are part of our society and shall return after having served their sentence. Opting for the right sentencing measure is an important element in being successful in terms of reducing the risk of recidivism, and thus using resources effictively. In this light it is very difficult to see the point of extensive use of short prison sentences.” Source: Nils Öberg,Dagens Nyheter, op-ed of 21 March 2016, available in Swedish [translation by FRA] The rest of this chapter discusses various measures that provide alternatives to detention. Chapter 5, which addresses issues relating to people in situations of vulnerability, also covers alternatives specially designed for children. 4.1. Alternatives to pre-trial detention Using detention during the pre-trial phase of criminal proceedings should not be default practice. Alternative measures should be the first resort, and detention only used where strictly necessary, and for as limited a length of time as needed. This is clear from a range of international human rights and criminal justice instruments, which agree that the presumption of innocence should lead to a presumption in favour of liberty, meaning pre-trial detention should be the exception and not the norm. Additionally, detention on remand should be as short as possible. 150 ECtHR jurisprudence makes very clear that authorities must convincingly justify any period of pre-trial detention; moreover, they are obliged to consider alternative measures for ensuring the suspect’s presence at trial.151 150 For example: Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers (2006), Recommendation Rec (2006)13 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the use of remand in custody, the conditions in which it takes place and the provision of safeguards against abuse, 27 September 2006, General Principles III (3); United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules), Annex to UN, General Assembly (GA) (1990a), Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, A/RES/45/110, 14 December 1990; UN, GA (1985), United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules), A/RES/40/33, 29 November 1985. 151 ECtHR, Idalov v. Russia, No. 5826/03, 22 May 2012.