Foreword Mutual recognition – the process of default recognition of decisions and judgments made by, for example, a court in another Member State – hinges greatly on Member States’ mutual trust in each other’s justice systems. Such trust, in turn, is highly dependent on respect for fundamental rights. The three European Union (EU) Framework Decisions at the heart of this study were designed to facilitate mutual recognition between EU Member States when transferring individuals serving prison sentences, persons subject to probation measures and alternative sanctions, and individuals awaiting trial (pursuant to the so-called European Supervision Order). The Framework Decisions instruct Member States to be guided by fundamental rights principles, including by considering alternatives to detention. Moreover, in its EU Justice Agenda for 2020 – entitled ‘Strengthening trust, mobility and growth within the Union’ – the European Commission emphasises the need to promote effective application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The agenda underscores that effective rights protection is crucial for promoting trust in the proper functioning of the European area of justice. It is also in light of this Justice Agenda that this report explores fundamental rights considerations in the application of the three Framework Decisions. Criminal justice systems themselves are inherently linked with fundamental rights. They serve to protect the rights and safety of victims and society as a whole, but also to offer rigorous safeguards to suspects, accused and sentenced persons. This is important both for these individuals themselves and for society as a whole. Beyond principles of humanity, societies benefit from the reintegration of persons who have served time in detention or have otherwise been constrained by the justice system. This also recalls the goal of reducing recidivism. Societal interests include making greater use of alternatives to detention in order to avoid the need to reintegrate persons after periods in detention. This is particularly important at the pre-trial stage, where individuals remain innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Using detention for serious crimes is certainly appropriate, albeit it may at times be counter-productive. This is particularly important to stress at times when short-term political gains may encourage harsh sentencing. The implementation deadlines for these instruments have passed, and EU Member States have by and large implemented them; making it timely for an assessment of how fundamental rights are safeguarded both in law and in practice. This study provides an overview of experiences in Member States, and highlights best practices and shortcomings. In so doing, it brings much-needed attention to both the potential and the risks these instruments entail in terms of fundamental rights protection. Michael O’Flaherty Director 3