Alternatives to detention An analysis of the availability and application of alternatives to detention in the EU Member States reveals that community service is the most commonly available alternative sanction. All but five (Austria, Cyprus, Italy, Slovenia and Spain) of the 28 EU Member States use community service either as an alternative to custodial punishment or as part of the probation measures placed on a sentenced person. Financial sanctions are excluded from the definition of ‘alternative sanctions’ in the Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions.168 However, FRA’s findings show that 16 of the 28 Member States use financial sanctions in different ways, such as for redistribution in the community or in the form of damages and expenses paid to victims of crime.169 In some EU Member States, prison sentences can be converted into monetary fines, or where a convicted person cannot afford it, into equivalent hours of ‘unpaid’ work in the community. For example, this is the case in Greece.170 In France, day-fines can be imposed. This means a daily contribution for a certain number of days, with a failure to pay resulting in the sentence being transformed into days of imprisonment.171 Many EU Member States include measures that are focused on victims. These include obligations to refrain from contacting victims or their family, payments of damages to victims, payments of medical costs, formal apologies to victims, and reconciliation measures. Ten Member States offer some form of victim-focused measure (Germany, Denmark, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Spain). Nineteen Member States have some form of rehabilitative sanctions that include social rehabilitation and integration measures, education and training, and therapeutic programmes for mental health and addiction. For example, in France, convicted persons may be obliged to attend citizenship training courses.172 168 Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA, Art. 2 (4) and 1 (3) (b). 169 FRA (2012b). 170 Greece, Criminal Code (Ποινικός Κώδικας), 31 May 1985, Art. 82 as modified by Art. 1 of Law 4093/2012 ‘Approval of the Medium Term Fiscal Strategy for 20132016 - Urgent Measures on Application of Law 4046/2012 and the Medium Term Fiscal Strategy for 2013-2016’ (Έγκριση Μεσοπρόθεσμου Πλαισίου Δημοσιονομικής Στρατηγικής 2013−2016 − Επείγοντα Μέτρα Εφαρμογής του ν. 4046/2012 και του Μεσοπρόθεσμου Πλαισίου Δημοσιονομικής Στρατηγικής 2013−2016), 12 November 2012. 171 France, Law 2014-896 on the individualisation of penalties and strengthening of the criminal sanctions’ effectiveness (Loi n° 2014-896 relative à l’individualisation des peines et renforçant l’efficacité des sanctions pénales), 15 August 2014; France, Criminal Code (Code pénal), Art. 131-4-1. 172 Ibid. Restrictions of movement as an alternative sanction can come in many forms. These include house arrest with electronic monitoring; prohibitions on entering certain locations; limitations on leaving the country; or deportation orders. House arrest with electronic monitoring is commonly used among EU Member States. The states that allow electronic monitoring include: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal and Spain. In Cyprus, this sanction is discretionary for prison authorities; decisions to allow it are made by a special committee consisting of various specialists within the prison staff.173 Belgium has a system of home detention with voice recognition. Vocal recognition is a simplified version of electronic monitoring: a sentenced person may be called at any time and their presence verified through vocal recognition via a secured phone line.174 Pre-trial detention in the EU – a ‘measure of last resort’? Fair Trials International, an advocacy organisation, in May 2015 published results from EU-funded research into the application of pre-trial detention in EU Member States. The research showed a strong preference for detention rather than alternatives in practice. It also revealed worrying practises, including judges using pre-trial detention for punitive purposes. However, the results also highlighted promising practices that avoid the persistent practice of using detention as default rather than as an exception. Source: Fair Trials (2016), Policy Report: Pre-Trial Detention in the EU Conclusion and FRA Opinion As noted, two of the three Framework Decisions aim to encourage alternatives to detention. This is also emphasised by the UN Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (the so-called Tokyo Rules, adopted in 1990), and by the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the so-called Nelson Mandela Rules, the revised version of which was adopted in December 2015). States should make available alternative measures for rehabilitating, monitoring and punishing suspects, accused, and sentenced persons that can equally or more effectively achieve criminal justice 173 Cyprus, Law on prisons of 1996 (Ο Περί Φυλακών Νόμοςτου 1996) N. 62(I)/1996, Art. 21A. 174 Belgium, Ministerial Circular n°1771 setting up the release after the execution of part of the imposed sentence (La circulaire ministérielle 1771 prévoit la mise en liberté après l’écoulement d’une partie prescrite de la peine), 17 January 2005; Belgium, Ministry of Justice (2011). 69