Overall goals and fundamental rights and note that refusing to recognise sanctions imposed to punish someone based on their sex, race, or other protected ground is permissible. Table 8 provides a comparative overview of the three decisions in this regard. However, a number of human rights – as expressed in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – and fundamental rights – as expressed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter) – are most relevant for persons subjected to transfers. They include: • the right to dignity (ECHR: general reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which refers to dignity in the preamble; Charter: Article 1) • freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment (ECHR: Article 3; Charter: Article 4) • the right to liberty (ECHR: Article 5; Charter: Article 6) • the right to a  fair trial (ECHR: Article  6; Charter: Article 47) • the right to respect for private and family life (ECHR: Article 8; Charter: Article 7). The last of these rights – respect for private and family life – relates to the three Framework Decisions’ overarching goal of social rehabilitation. This chapter provides an overview of these rights as they are relevant to the Framework Decisions; the subsequent chapters focus in more detail on particular aspects of the decisions and the related fundamental rights. Persons subjected to measures foreseen in all three Framework Decisions benefit from the guarantees of the ECHR and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Nevertheless, this section focuses mainly on the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners because it provides for cross-border transfers of individuals who are deprived of their liberty and are non-nationals of the sentencing EU Member State – circumstances that require a very careful consideration of fundamental rights as well as of prospects of rehabilitation. The individuals involved can be characterised as vulnerable by virtue of being both non-nationals and prisoners. It is important to note that the transfer proceedings do not intend to – and should not – replace expulsion proceedings (removal). The transfer proceedings are easier, faster and less formalised and authorities might be tempted to use them instead of proper removal proceedings. It should be remembered that, according to the Free Movement Directive,55 Member States are only exceptionally allowed to institute removal proceedings of Union citizens – on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Measures taken must be based on personal conduct, 55 Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, OJ L 158. which must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society, and previous crimi­nal convictions do not themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures. Persons affected must be fully informed – in an understandable manner – about the decision to remove them and the grounds for that decision. Additionally, an effective remedy must be at the disposal of the person to be removed. Moreover, expulsion orders may not be issued as a legal consequence of a custodial penalty.56 In light of these provisions, it is obvious that removal proceedings are lengthy and that strict conditions apply. In contrast, proceedings for transferring prisoners are intended to be quick, and facilitating social rehabilitation is the overarching aim. With respect to decisions on transfer proceedings, there is no requirement for an effective remedy. For these reasons, Member States should ensure that the transfer proceedings do not operate as a ‘lighter’ version of removal/expulsion proceedings. If there are grounds for expelling someone in accordance with domestic law, expulsion proceedings should be instituted – with all procedural guarantees secured. Persons benefiting from the Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions and the Framework Decision on the ESO run less risk of having their fundamental rights violated because they are not deprived of their liberty. Moreover, they are subjected to measures alternative to detention, which often include social or community elements, and that fact alone facilitates social rehabilitation. The Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions provides for transferring probation measures only, and not sentenced persons. Additionally, a probation measure can only be transferred when a sentenced person has returned or wants to return to their home country, or when this person requests a transfer to another Member State (for example, to study or work there). Similarly, according to the ESO, a measure is only transferred for supervision in another EU Member State with the suspect’s consent. Nevertheless, the objective of achieving social rehabilitation is mentioned in Article 1 and Recital 14 of the Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions. The Framework Decision on the ESO does not refer to social rehabilitation. The Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons refers to the social rehabilitation of sentenced persons as one of the grounds for supporting such transfers.57 The objectives of the convention are: • achieving greater unity between the Council of Europe Member States; 56 Ibid., Articles 27–33. 57 Council of Europe, Convention on the transfer of sentenced persons, Preamble. 37