Conclusions This report examines fundamental rights concerns related to the three EU instruments on transfers, between EU Member States, of prison sentences, probation measures and alternative sanctions, as well as pretrial supervision measures: the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners, the Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions, and the Framework Decision on the European Supervision Order. This is done by highlighting risks of fundamental rights violations in the execution of transfers or as a result of transfers, such as due to poor prison conditions. The Framework Decisions’ potential impact on fundamental rights should not be underestimated. If fully applied, they could boost the social rehabilitation of detainees, prompt greater use of alternatives to detention, and even improve detention standards – all with great importance for fundamental rights and, in turn, for enhanced mutual trust between Member States. The instruments could be of benefit not just to suspects, accused and sentenced persons and their families, but also to victims of crime and to society at large. Opinions formulated on the basis of the research findings aim to offer concrete guidance on how the EU and its Member States can promote fundamental rights by making greater use of the instruments, improving fundamental rights aspects in their implementation, and creating incentives for improvements relating to detention and its alternatives. More specifically, the Opinions suggest improvements related to risks of fundamental rights violations as to, for instance, the dignity of persons, the prohibition of inhumane treatment, privacy, and the right to family life, but also regarding persons in situations of vulnerability. In addition, the report and the Opinions deal with social rehabilitation, another issue with strong fundamental rights implications. They also scrutinise to what extent transferees are given an opportunity to ‘participate’ in transfer proceedings in the sense of being made aware of the possibility, being informed of and made to understand the transfer process and its consequences, as well as – where applicable – consenting to a transfer. In addition, the Opinions offer guidance on the interlinkages between the instruments and the Victims’ Rights Directive. This report underscores that the deprivation of liberty, and detention in particular, entails a great responsibility to ensure proportionality in terms of what it seek to achieve in relation to the restrictions of rights involved for suspects, accused or sentenced persons. Finding a good balance between restrictions on personal liberty and the necessities of the criminal process is vital. The three Framework Decisions bring both risks and potential in this regard. Given continuous developments in their implementation, further research would be most useful once relevant practices have been established. 107