Criminal detention and alternatives: fundamental rights aspects in EU cross-border transfers pre-and post-trial. FRA’s research shows that authorities can choose from a wide range of alternatives to detention, which can be tailored to the individual circumstances of a case to achieve the best outcome – for example, barring orders to protect victims or medical rehabilitation to treat offenders with addictions. However, these options are applied quite differently across Member States. Some states have limited sentencing options; for example, just over half of the EU Member States have the possibility of conditional sentencing, which postpones the imposition of a sentence in favour of community supervision measures. The availability of such measures offers a de facto second chance to offenders. There is room for EU Member States to use alternative measures both for new and repeat offenders. All Member States offer early conditional release from prison sentences, which allows persons a chance to reform and reintegrate into society at an earlier stage. Some regimes are more restrictive than others, and most states have different rules for release from detention – for example, only for certain types of offences or after a certain period of time. The research also shows that many states have alternative sanctions with the victim in mind, including financial reparations or a formal apology from offender to victim. A more harmonised approach to, and greater use of, alternatives to detention across EU Member States would not only bring practice more in line with international human rights standards but would also facilitate applying the Framework Decisions to their full extent. All this would also reinforce mutual trust between EU Member States. FRA Opinion 6 International and European human rights law requires that pre-trial detention is the exception rather than the rule. To ensure effective implementation of the three Framework Decisions, EU Member States should treat detention as a last resort  – especially at the pre-trial stage, when suspects have not been found guilty. This will also reduce costs, improve detention conditions, and facilitate social rehabilitation. Greater use of alternatives to detention, both pre- and posttrial, must be achieved across EU Member States, with the greatest importance reasonably to be placed on the pre-trial phase. To ensure effective implementation of the three Framework Decisions, the  EU and the Member States must ensure a more harmonised approach across the  EU in terms of when detention is used, what alternatives to detention are in place and when they are used, and what social rehabilitation entails. This would also reinforce mutual trust across EU Member States, which is the basis for effective mutual recognition of judicial decisions. 14 Taking persons in situations of vulnerability fully into account While detention can generally have negative effects, the impact can be greater for persons in situations of vulnerability, such as children, persons with disabilities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons. Discrimination is only one of many risks that transgender persons, for example, face in detention. Studies show that there are also problems with insufficient medical attention and with abuse, including sexual assault. Such vulnerabilities must be given due consideration, and detention should only be used very exceptionally. Rule 2 (2) of the UN’s Nelson Mandela Rules states that “for the principle of non-discrimination to be put into practice, prison administrations shall take account of the individual needs of prisoners, in particular the most vulnerable categories in prison settings. Measures to protect and promote the rights of prisoners with special needs are required and shall not be regarded as discriminatory.” Rule 5 (2) notes that “[p]rison administrations shall make all reasonable accommodation and adjustments to ensure that prisoners with physical, mental or other disabilities have full and effective access to prison life on an equitable basis.” The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular Article 21 on non-discrimination and Article 20 on equality before the law, is also essential in this context. Additionally, the ‘best interests of the child’ should be of primary consideration – as prescribed by, for instance, Articles 3 and 9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Council of Europe’s Guidelines on childfriendly justice. According to FRA’s research findings, very few EU Member States have special provisions securing the rights of persons in situations of vulnerability in their laws implementing the Framework Decisions. However, several states have put in place particular alternatives to detention to accommodate vulnerability. For children, such measures include various forms of ‘light monitoring’, such as by guardians, or educational efforts. For parents with young children, the right to family life may be undermined by detentions of parents. Having children stay with detained parents is largely not a viable option, underscoring the usefulness of alternatives to detention. The needs of persons with disabilities similarly call into question the appropriateness of detention. International human rights standards stress that alternatives should be sought, while also calling for detention facilities that appropriately accommodate persons with disabilities. Providing information to individuals in situations of vulnerability might require using special techniques, such as braille for people with visual impairments or sign language for people with speech and hearing impairments. Providing information to persons with intellectual