chapter 3. methods and modes of engagement that can contribute to the prevention of ill-treatment in cross-border proceedings The previous chapters considered generally the relationship between the judiciary and NPMs and how engagement can positively contribute to improving conditions of detention by directly contributing to the dignified treatment of detainees and at the same time strengthen mutual trust across the EU. Chapter 3 will to examine the possible role of NPMs directly in the context of transfer proceedings. For this purpose, the CJEU’s Aranyosi and Căldăraru judgment will constitute a key development. 3.1. npms addressing the challenges of framework decisions on detention The potential role of NPMs in addressing fundamental rights challenges linked to the implementation of the Framework Decisions on detention is tied to the question of how aware NPMs are of EU law. No NPM claimed as part of the surveys that they had a very good knowledge of EU instruments, but two NPMs (Italy and Lithuania) stated, that they systematically refer to EU regulations in their reports and recommendations. A third of the NPMs stated that they posses some knowledge with a quarter of all EU NPMs having little or no knowledge at all. Most NPMs have however used EU law in their recommendations.309 During the interviews however it became evident that where EU law is applied in the work of NPMs, it is largely in the context of asylum and migration law and less in the field of criminal justice. There are different aspects of how the application of the Framework Decisions on detention could potentially be relevant to the NPM’s mandate. Firstly, if the application or non-application of an FD systematically influences conditions of detention, for example through the issuing of a large number of EAWs or the non-application of alternatives to detention, such as the ESO. Several NPMs also were already contacted by individuals affected by transfer proceedings. For most NPMs the question as to whether cross-border proceedings with a potential influence on the situation of detention would fall within their mandate was unchartered territory. A number of NPMs also highlighted that more expertise would be useful in order to fully assess this issue. Several NPMs shared concerns about the prevention of ill-treatment in connection with the implementation of the EAW and other Framework Decisions. One NPM was of the view that stronger guarantees would be needed to ensure the presence of a lawyer from the first moment of arrest and during interrogation for example. Another challenge that was pointed out was the fact that it is more difficult to gather evidence on possible inhuman treatment when relating to a prisoner abroad. At the same time, this is also mentioned as a good opportunity for NPMs to establish themselves as credible, detailed and up-to-date sources of information. The Finnish NPM considers transfer cases as within its mandate and has received complaints on transfers from Finland to Estonia. It further felt that if the application of any of the Framework Decisions on detention was influencing the situation of detention in the country and that there were 309 In the survey performed on NPMs in this project, 15 NPMs answered that they refer to EU law in their reports, two of them even systematically. Only 5 of them never mention EU law. 85