Criminal detention and alternatives: fundamental rights aspects in EU cross-border transfers Framework Decisions entail. For this reason, the report reviews the application of the three instruments and explores aspects that are of particular relevance from a fundamental rights-perspective – both problems and potentially positive impacts. While the report underscores the importance of EU Member States’ mutual trust in each other’s judicial systems, and what is needed to improve such trust, it does not address in detail how this could be achieved. Thus, the report does not discuss aspects such as how detention could be reduced or how alternatives to detention should be used more frequently. The report also explores what could be done to improve mutual trust between Member States in relation to detention and its alternatives, in terms of drawing on, enhancing and making more EU-specific existing international monitoring mechanisms. Mutual trust is a precondition for mutual recognition of judicial decisions and can be significantly enhanced by full fundamental rights compliance. Reform could also be encouraged by linking recommendations made by such monitoring bodies to available funds that could help improve detention conditions (discussed in Chapter 2). The report is intended to be particularly useful for practitioners in EU Member States who may apply the three instruments. It hopes to help avoid the development of fundamental rights concerns in the application of the Framework Decisions – but also to encourage their use, given their inherent potential to strengthen fundamental rights. Against this background, Chapter 3 also examines fundamental rights concerns in relation to detention, such as overpopulation and prison conditions, and touches on radicalisation in prison. Chapter 5 explores issues relating to persons in situations of vulnerability  – including children, parents of young children, people with disabilities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex (LGBTI) persons, in particular transgender persons. Chapter 6 analyses procedural aspects, particularly access to information and – where applicable – consent. Finally, Chapter 7 assesses whether victims’ rights, as made explicit in the Victims’ Rights Directive, are taken into account in the implementation and application of the Framework Decisions. A range of other actors are looking at the implementation and practical application of one or more of the three instruments, focusing on various aspects thereof. FRA’s report contributes to these efforts by presenting a fundamental rights perspective on all three Framework Decisions. The data and information on EU Member States presented in this report cover the period up to 1 June 2015, which is 2–3 years after the three Framework Decisions’ implementation deadlines. The information was obtained through desk research and consultations with government officials, judges, and other professional groups involved in the criminal justice process to get a comprehensive picture of both law and practice. Chapter 1 examines how EU Member States have implemented and made use of the Framework Decisions as they relate to fundamental rights. The report also considers advantages and concerns with the Framework Decisions from a fundamental rights perspective, and analyses the instruments’ overall goals – mainly social rehabilitation (Chapter 2) and promoting alternatives to detention (Chapter 4), both of which are closely related to fundamental rights. Social rehabilitation forms part of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and also relates directly to specific fundamental rights, such as dignity and family life, but also, for example, the right to education. International human rights conventions promote alternatives to detention as more compatible with dignity and family life, but also to avoid inhuman and degrading treatment, which detention can entail. For serious crimes or certain other situations, detention – both pre- and post-trial – may be called for. But particularly for less serious crimes, it is important to consider alternatives, albeit not exclusively. 10 The potential fundamental rights impact of the Framework Decisions should not be underestimated. Use of the instruments could increase, which could boost the social rehabilitation of post-trial detainees by allowing them to serve time or be on conditional release closer to home. It could also encourage greater use of alternatives to detention, and even improve detention standards (e.g. by reducing overcrowding) – all with great importance for fundamental rights. This, in turn, could enhance mutual trust between Member States. If implemented and applied correctly, the instruments can benefit suspects, accused and sentenced persons and their families, but also victims of crime by, for instance, ensuring that victims are also properly informed about early releases in cross-border cases, and more generally society at large by, for instance, reducing costs for detention and facilitating social rehabilitation. FRA Opinions Based on its research findings, FRA has formulated opinions to offer concrete guidance on fundamental rights standards that are relevant in the context of the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners, the Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions, and the Framework Decision on the European Supervision Order (ESO). Unless noted otherwise, the following FRA Opinions apply to these three Framework Decisions.