Overall goals and fundamental rights Developing an EU-funded network to promote fundamental rights of prisoners The Criminal Justice Programme of the EU is providing financial support to a  ‘Prison litigation network’, which seeks to improve knowledge of EU law requirements in relation to prisoners and provide information on detention standards in various EU Member States. It will also share national litigation experiences. To date, information on 10 EU Member States is available online, outlining aspects such as complaints bodies, remedies, procedures and rights – all related to prisons and prisoners. For further information, see www.prisonlitigationnetwork.eu/ A solid monitoring system connected to incentives for change An accessible system applied in a harmonised manner is a good start. But the monitoring is not always sufficiently frequent and all-encompassing to provide thorough and up-to-date overviews of the various places of detention in a Member State. Some of the monitoring is less frequent (up to five years), which may limit its usefulness. While some data are annual, others are ad hoc – on ‘a need to’ basis. The nature of the monitoring may also not be fully adjusted to the specificities of the EU legal instruments, such as the concept of social rehabilitation or even rights of crime victims (see Chapters 4 and 6, respectively). The work of the CPT, for instance, could be reinforced through support and an agreement with the EU to provide more frequent and targeted monitoring in the EU Member States. Enhanced monitoring for the  EU Member States could also be boosted by stronger support to, and monitoring schemes by, National Preventive Mechanisms (NPM).127 An accessible system with a harmonised application across the EU, connected with a solid monitoring system boosted by EU-supported and EU-specific monitoring, would need to be coupled with incentives for change. Two efforts would be essential in this regard. First, to identify promising practices and provide ‘twinning’ systems that bring together Member States or other actors that need to improve and those that know how to achieve the desired results. The advice given could range from political advice on how to allocate state 127 For more details on the role and potential of NPMs, see Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights and the Human Rights Implementation Centre of the University of Bristol (2015). For an overview of available monitoring, particularly of detained children, see Defence for Children (DCI) – Belgium (2015). resources for detention and alternatives (as opposed to schools or hospitals), to advice on more efficient and fundamental rights-complaint systems for transfer and improved detention standards. Second, recommendations issued by monitoring bodies, such as the CPT, could be linked to financial resources – for instance, those already available via the EU’s Structural and Investment Funds128 or EEA and Norway Grants.129 For funds to be made available, shortcomings pointed out by the CPT would have to be addressed. This would further enhance the needed trust between the EU Member States and would ensure constructive fundamental rights improvements. With these steps, the vision of an operational EU area of justice in compliance with fundamental rights could be realised, and the EU would be a global leader on this issue. Conclusion and FRA Opinions The three Framework Decisions partly share and partly have individual overarching goals. In general, the instruments seek to promote social rehabilitation and, apart from the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners, also promote alternatives to detention, as well as the protection of crime victims and the public in general. The fundamental rights-links to these concepts include explicit provisions calling for a minimal use of detention, especially pre-trial, as well as the prohibition of torture and degrading treatment. For the pre-trial instrument, the presumption of innocence is also highly relevant. Fundamental rights linked to social rehabilitation include respect for family life, the rights of the child, as well as the right to work. The EU instruments must, as always, be applied in line with fundamental rights and international human rights standards. FRA’s findings show that a large majority of EU Member States considers fundamental rights and social rehabilitation prospects when deciding on transfers of prisoners. Family and social ties are the most important factors, followed by humanitarian concerns and detention conditions. However, the research shows that many Member States approach social rehabilitation rather narrowly, focusing merely on transferring persons to their ‘home country’. Prospects for social rehabilitation should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and be taken very seriously. There is an assumption that social rehabilitation is only possible in the offender’s state of nationality; this assumption runs contrary to 128 For resources available from the European Commission, see, e.g., European Commission (2015a) (taking its starting point in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and reiterating that these legally binding provisions are obligatory when European Structural or Investment Funds are used). 129 More information is available on the EEA and Norway Grants website. 51