Introduction would in turn enhance mutual trust between Member States. If implemented and applied correctly, the instruments can be of benefit to suspects, accused and sentenced persons and their families, but also to victims of crime and to society at large. A particular EU-angle on the instruments is the possible discriminatory effects on EU citizens from other EU Member States, who may be held in pre-trial detention to prevent escape or may not be able to take advantage of family visits or leave during post-trial detention as frequently as citizens of the country in which the sentence is served. The EU has taken some steps to address these more overarching issues – for example, by soliciting views from the Member States on the desirability of legislating or taking other action on detention,10 with follow-up to be expected. This report aims to: • contribute to the work of the European Commission in supporting the proper application of the three EU Framework Decisions; • support EU Member State efforts to implement and apply the three instruments, with due attention to fundamental rights; • allow judges, prosecutors, government agencies, and ministry personnel deciding on or supporting transfers to better take fundamental rights into consideration; • inform decision-making by the detention and probation staff that prepares and follows up on transfers; • support lawyers representing persons (or the persons themselves) who could potentially be transferred under the three Framework Decisions; • provide insights that benefit civil society organisations that monitor detention conditions, support detainees, or advocate for fundamental rights – or could step up efforts in this regard. Research objective and methodology The main objective of this study is to explore the practical application of the three Framework Decisions – how the instruments are used in reality – with respect to fundamental rights. The research focuses on transfers of suspects, accused and sentenced persons. Detention of asylum seekers and other particular forms of detention, such as to prevent the spreading of disease and other forms of non-criminal detention, fall outside of the scope of this study. 10 In addition to the overarching assessment of fundamental rights implications in the application of the three Framework Decisions, this study aims to: • examine how EU Member States have implemented and made use of the Framework Decisions in terms of fundamental rights (see Chapter 1); • consider advantages and potential drawbacks of the Framework Decisions from a fundamental rights perspective (see Chapter 2); • explore the risks of fundamental rights violations, including for persons in situations of vulnerability, in the practical application of the Framework Decisions (see Chapters 3 and 5); • analyse whether the overall goals of the Framework Decisions – mainly promoting social rehabilitation (see Chapter 2) and alternatives to detention (see Chapter 4), both closely associated with fundamental rights – are achieved in practice; • scrutinise whether affected persons are given the opportunity to ‘participate’ in the transfer proceedings in the sense of being aware of the possibility; being informed and made to understand the transfer process and its consequences; as well as, where applicable, consenting to the transfer (see Chapter 6); • explore whether victims’ rights as made explicit in the Victims’ Rights Directive are taken into account in the implementation and application of the Framework Decisions (see Chapter 7). The research identifies barriers to, and opportunities for, implementation in practice, with a focus on the fundamental rights of the persons concerned. It also highlights promising practices. The research design was based on very detailed guidelines developed by FRA, formulated to capture law and practice in a comparative way from diverse systems across the EU. These guidelines were then used by FRA’s contracted research teams in each of the 28 EU Member States, focusing on key fundamental rights aspects, including the nature of social rehabilitation, consent/information, and rights of victims. The data and information had a cut-off line of 1 June 2015, so the findings from the Member States cover developments up to that date – with the exception of comparative material from the Council of Europe and the EU, which is up to date as of 1 May 2016. FRA drafted this comparative report in late 2015 and early 2016, drawing on the reports from the national research teams, on analyses of international human rights law standards, EU law, and jurisprudence, as well as on additional desk research. European Commission (2011a); European Commission (2011b). 19