Criminal detention and alternatives: fundamental rights aspects in EU cross-border transfers 50 Apart from such commitments by Moldova and the Ukraine, two EU Member States – Bulgaria and Luxembourg – have allowed for this.122 of such bodies also offers objective criteria that lends itself to comparison, in addition to the monitoring work they do. More tellingly, however, is a mechanism at the CPT’s disposal to address severe situations – the so-called ‘public statement’ (Article 10 (2)).123 Where a state fails to implement the committee’s actual recommendations, the CPT may, as a last resort, make a public statement. As of 1 April 2016, there are public statements with regard to four Member States of the Council of Europe,124 including two EU Member States.125 The reports issued by the CPT also state whether an Article 10 (2) procedure is open or that opening one is being considered, which – like the public statements – gives an indication of the level of severity of concerns. However, it should be noted that this is not a system of absolute comparability since the CPT may base its decision to warn about or open an Article 10 (2) procedure, or indeed issue a public statement, on strategic choices as to what will have the best impact. Still, the procedure does indicate systemic concerns as well as a general unwillingness or inability to act on the CPT advice. CPT reports also include other comparative aspects relating to the quality of detention, using clear and precise standards. Additionally, the number of visits by the CPT to a state provides guidance on the level of concern as to detention conditions in that particular country. Additionally, the willingness of potential transferees to actually be transferred, in particular under the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners, could provide an indication of concerns about prison conditions in a particular EU Member State (or even particular places of detention, when these are known). A harmonised approach These resources are not easily accessible, however, and the various levels and instruments are not welllinked; the information about a given state is scattered across a variety of different sources. Awareness and use of these sources could be enhanced by creating a single access point. This should be put at the disposal of judges, prison and probation officials, or ministry civil servants, in an accessible and simple format, and in a language they understand. At the level of the UN, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture, CAT) is equipped with a monitoring body as well as a Sub-Committee on Prevention of Torture (SPT). The CAT assesses states’ performance against the human rights standards by scrutinizing reports submitted by states, and through dialogue. It also processes individual complaints. The SPT monitors places of detention. A first step would be the pooling of existing data, information and analyses. This could be done through an EU fundamental rights information system, with a module or scoreboard focusing on detention conditions, similar to the EU’s Justice Scoreboard used to assess court efficiency.126 Such a system would bring together all relevant monitoring data and assessments delivered under the different international and European instruments mentioned in a single online entry point. The large amount of existing information would be tagged by thematic areas (like pre-trial detention) and made searchable by these and various other relevant categories – like time and Member State – thereby allowing for instant comparisons across Member States and the identification of trends over time. Linked to the UN but at a national level are other useful resources that can contribute to assessing human rights. The optional protocol to the CAT, the so-called OPCAT, obliges states to set up a National Preventive Mechanism (NPM). However, not all EU Member States are parties to the OPCAT. (Latvia and Slovakia have not signed it; Belgium and Ireland signed in 2005 and 2007, respectively, but have not yet ratified it). The effectiveness When a system is in place that provides objective data and information in an accessible way, a practice could also be designed that would harmonise how this is used, when, and by whom. For instance, such practice guidance could stipulate that a certain level of criticism would place the burden on the state with the problems to prove that they have a system that is at a sufficiently high level to enable transfers. 122 Council of Europe (2016a). 123 The provision of the ECPT reads: “If the Party fails to co-operate or refuses to improve the situation in the light of the Committee’s recommendations, the Committee may decide, after the Party has had an opportunity to make known its views, by a majority of two-thirds of its members to make a public statement on the matter”. 124 More information is available on the HUDOC website. 125 Council of Europe, Committee for the Prevention of Torture (2015), ‘Public statement concerning Greece’, CPT/Inf (2010) 10, 15 March 2011; ‘Public statement concerning Bulgaria’, CPT/Inf (2015) 17, 26 March 2015. 126 European Commission, DG Justice, EU Justice Scoreboard.