JUSTICE FOR ALL accommodations for the persons concerned. The EU jurisprudence made fundamental rights violations in the context of cross-border proceedings hard to demonstrate, reinforcing the presumption of fundamental rights compliance as encompassed in the principles of mutual trust and mutual recognition. As a result, while the postponement of a transfer is envisioned in the EU instruments, the total refusal by a State to transfer a defendant or detainee is only acceptable in rare cases of extreme violations of fundamental rights. At the national level, Member States possess some leeway while transposing EU instruments, which led to a certain fragmentation of rights at the domestic level. Some Member States have recognized more grounds for refusal to transfer, including the non-respect of procedural safeguards. Some have added general provisions to better protect the person concerned during criminal proceedings. Some transposition laws, however, have also altered or removed some protective articles or added constraining obligations. More specifically, Member States have generally failed to add provisions protecting persons with psychosocial and/or intellectual disabilities at the national level. Many partner countries reported how consent, both in relation to the criminal proceedings and to medical treatment, was sometimes not included in the legislation or not sought to properly ensure informed and genuine agreement. Finally, the report showed a general lack of awareness and knowledge in respect of both the framework decisions (except for the EAW FD) and the involvement of persons with psychosocial and/or intellectual disabilities in cross-border proceedings. 15