Criminal detention and alternatives: fundamental rights aspects in EU cross-border transfers innocence in the European Union […]. As a consequence, the present Framework Decision has as its objective the promotion, where appropriate, of the use of non-custodial measures as an alternative to provisional detention.” It is thus clear that, in general, the instruments seek to promote social rehabilitation – the ESO by not depriving anyone of their liberty in the first place, avoiding the need for rehabilitation – and apart from the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners, also promote alternatives to detention, in addition to the protection of crime victims and the general public. Social rehabilitation is of great importance for individuals to adjust to life back in liberty. But it is also of great importance to society in that it seeks to reintegrate sentenced persons into society. Social rehabilitation is therefore important for the criminal justice system and its capacity to Table 8: Promoting alternatives to detention has a clear fundamental rights-basis – not only the provisions explicitly calling for minimising the use of detention, especially pre-trial, but also the prohibition of torture and degrading treatment. For the pre-trial instrument, the presumption of innocence is also highly relevant. The link between social rehabilitation and fundamental rights may be less apparent, but the respect for family life and the rights of the child (for children to see their parents) play a role. The three Framework Decisions do not explicitly grant any specific fundamental rights. They do refer to fundamental rights generally in the operative provisions, References to fundamental rights in the three Framework Decisions Transfer of prisoners Probation and alternative sanctions Article on fundamental rights (identical) 3 (4) “This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 [TEU].” 1 (4) “This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 [TEU].” 5 “This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 [TEU].” Recital on fundamental rights (differences in bold) (13) “This Framework Decision respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by Article 6 [TEU] and reflected by the [Charter], in particular Chapter VI thereof. Nothing in this Framework Decision should be interpreted as prohibiting refusal to execute a decision when there are objective reasons to believe that the sentence was imposed for the purpose of punishing a person on the grounds of his or her sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, language, political opinions or sexual orientation, or that that person’s position may be prejudiced on any one of those grounds.” (5) “This Framework Decision respects fundamental rights and adheres to the principles recognised in Article [TEU], which are also expressed in the [Charter], especially in Chapter VI thereof. No provision of this Framework Decision should be interpreted as prohibiting refusal to recognise a judgment and/or supervise a probation measure or alternative sanction if there are objective reasons to believe that the probation measure or alternative sanction was imposed to punish a person because of his or her sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, language, political opinions or sexual orientation or that this person might be disadvantaged for one of these reasons.” (16) “This Framework Decision respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised, in particular, by Article 6 [TEU] and reflected by the [Charter]. Nothing in this Framework Decision should be interpreted as prohibiting refusal to recognise a decision on supervision measures if there are objective indications that it was imposed to punish a person because of his or her sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, language, political convictions or sexual orientation or that this person might be disadvantaged for one of these reasons.” Source: FRA, 2016 36 reduce recidivism, but also because it helps society avoid the financial costs associated with prosecuting repeat offenders. European Supervision Order (ESO)