Criminal detention and alternatives: fundamental rights aspects in EU cross-border transfers The three Framework Decisions and their application in practice The three Framework Decisions  – on transfer of prisoners, probation and alternative sanctions, and on the European Supervision Order  – were adopted in 2008 and 2009, with implementation deadlines of December 2011 and December 2012, respectively. However, at the time of data collection (May 2015), not all Member States had implemented the decisions. Moreover, in many states that had implemented the legislation, the instruments had not yet been applied in practice. It was thus very difficult and sometimes impossible to assess the Framework Decisions’ practical implications for transfers of prisoners, probation measures and alternative sanctions. The research teams in the EU Member States conducted desk research and occasionally consulted government officials, judges, and other professional groups involved in criminal processes to get a comprehensive picture of both law and practice. In addition, FRA conducted a preparatory consultation, including with key experts in the area, during the initial stages of the project. FRA researchers additionally had extensive conversations with practitioners and experts in around 10 EU Member States to get a more detailed and practical understanding of the situation, including problems and promising practices. This information, though not presented systematically here, did inform the drafting and the views presented in this report. FRA attempted to capture the perspective of persons who have had their ‘cases’ transferred under the three Framework Decisions, but this proved difficult. When FRA conducted the research, few Member States had implemented the decisions and even fewer had actually applied them. For instance, not a single case had been completed under the European Supervision Order (only failed attempts without any transfers being completed); while there was more practical experience with the other decisions, it was limited and access proved complicated. 20 Interviews with transferees under the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners An EU-funded project led by the National Offender Management System (NOMS), an agency of the United Kingdom government, included a  Bucharest University survey of transferees before and after actual transfers between EU Member States. The researchers received 88 questionnaire responses and conducted 41  interviewees. The project included interviews with Romanian prisoners held in Spain and Italy and related to possible transfers under the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners. All involved detainees in Italy were aware of the possibility to transfer, seemingly having been informed by staff, while less than two thirds of detainees in Spain were aware of this. The detainees’ awareness of details on how transfers functioned was rather poor in both countries. Over 40 % of the detainees in Spain wanted to be transferred to be closer to their families, but apparently also to benefit from earlier release available in Romania. (Considerably fewer detainees in Italy did, possibly due to the comparative advantages of early prison release in Italy compared to Romania.) Demotivating factors for the procedure were its duration and the unpredictability of its outcome. The researchers caution that due to the selection effect of those volunteering to take part in the research, the general view towards transfers would likely be less positive. Overall, the conclusions are that, while the Framework Decision’s overarching goal is to increase social rehabilitation, detainees mainly saw the instrument as a possibility to shorten their sentence, irrespective of where or under what conditions. Source: Prof. Ioan Durnescu, University of Bucharest; Deputy Director Esther Montero Perez de Tudela, Huelva Penitentiary Institution, Spain; and Dr. Luisa Ravagnani, University of Brescia, Prisoner transfer and the importance of ‘release effect’ (article forthcoming) This report employs terminology that distinguishes between pre- and post-trial where needed, and applies more general terms when not. Table  1 provides an overview, and brief explanations, of terms used in this report.