Part II: Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation its implementation, is an example of the critical relationship between mutual trust and fundamental rights in general and the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment in particular. The European Commission’s Green Paper on Detention affirmed that ‘[d]etention conditions can have a direct impact on the smooth functioning of the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions. Pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners alike are entitled to a reasonable standard of detention conditions. Prison overcrowding and allegations of poor treatment of detainees may undermine the trust that is necessary to underpin judicial cooperation within the European Union.’232 This means that mutual trust can be undermined by the inconsistent law and practice regarding detention by member states which the EU needs to address. The EU is therefore understood to have competence also for conditions of detention in certain cases. Furthermore, the Analysis of the replies to the Green Paper on Detention highlighted ‘the practical issue of finding up-to-date information concerning the prison conditions […] of other member States.’233 In recent years the EU has become more active in the area of justice and home affairs and has issued a number of framework decisions (FD) and, after the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon, a number of directives that affect the sphere of torture monitoring bodies’ work. This includes: the EAW, the FD on the Transfer of Prisoners,234 the FD on Probation Decisions and Alternative Sanctions,235 the FD on the European Supervision Order236 as well as the Procedural Rights Package, consisting amongst others of the Directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings,237 the Directive on interpretation and translation,238 the Directive on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings.239 NPMs and the EU While NPMs of France, Spain and UK have provided input to the Commission’s Green Paper on Detention, the consultations held in the framework of this Project have shown that the majority of NPMs have almost no direct lines of communication with EU institutions, with some NPMs saying they have had no contact with EU institutions at all. The consultations also showed that for NPM staff, who often already face a heavy workload, keeping track of relevant EU legislation is a challenge. It was also noted that there have been very limited contact and cooperation between the EU and SPT, aside from a few meetings with different DGs to introduce the SPT. At the same time it was acknowledged that NPMs could play an important role with regard to several of the fundamental rights challenges the EU is facing in the implementation of its legislation as well as, more in general, in the monitoring of the fundamental rights situation in EU member states. Indeed, NPMs’ regular monitoring of places of detention generates valuable information and expertise that could European Commission ‘Strengthening mutual trust in the European judicial area – A Green Paper on the application of EU criminal justice legislation in the field of detention’ (14.6.2011) COM(2011) 327 final. 233 For the Analysis of the replies to the Green Paper on Detention see the DG Justice´s website <http://ec.europa.eu/ justice/newsroom/criminal/opinion/110614_en.htm>. 234 Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union [2008] OJ L327/27. 235 Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions [2008] OJ L337/102. 236 Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention [2009] OJ L294/20. 237 Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings [2012] OJ L142/1. 238 Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings [2010] OJ L280/1. 239 Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty [2013] OJ L294/1. 232 - 79 -