Criminal detention and alternatives: fundamental rights aspects in EU cross-border transfers provision of state-guaranteed legal aid.321 In Finland and Sweden it is believed that such assistance is only needed in exceptional cases, but is nevertheless available. FRA’s research shows that, in Austria and Malta, the laws implementing the Framework Decision on the ESO and the Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions do not regulate the issue, which, in the absence of practice, is therefore not clear. Conclusion and FRA Opinion EU Member States are still in the process of establishing relevant rules on transferring prisoners, probation orders and supervision measures under the three Framework Decisions, and clearer practices will likely emerge in future. From a fundamental rights perspective, affected persons should ideally not be treated as mere objects of transfers but instead be involved in the process to ensure that they are aware of possibilities for transfers, and that they understand the transfer process and its consequences. For instance, social rehabilitation should not be used deceptively or as an excuse to effectively ‘deport’ persons. Adequately involving potential transferees in the process will support the Framework Decisions’ overarching goals, including social rehabilitation and, thus, societal interests. Involvement includes being properly informed about options and consequences of transfers, as well as a realistic time line for the process. This would also be in the spirit of Article 1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which guarantees the right to human dignity. FRA’s research shows that further safeguards are needed to ensure the overall fairness of the transfer process and to achieve the overall goals of the instruments. For example, findings highlight considerable divergence among the  EU Member States when it comes to informing persons potentially subjected to transfer and ways of obtaining their consent. It is important that foreign nationals are provided with translations of essential documents and interpretation to protect their rights. Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to translation and interpretation in criminal proceedings could be used to inspire responses to such needs in the context of transfer proceedings. EU-wide guidance on information about cross-border transfer proceedings and their implications could draw on Directive 2012/13/EU on the right to information in criminal proceedings. Legal aid may also be needed, at least in particular cases. Where consent is required, the applicable requirements need to be stricter, making sure that consent is provided based on objective facts about transfers and 321 Lithuania, Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (2005), Law on State-guaranteed Legal Aid (Valstybės garantuojamos teisinės pagalbos įstatymas), No. X-78, 20 January 2005. 98 their consequences. Where consent is required, it would appear logical to grant a right to revoke such consent, at least during a certain period, given the very serious consequences of such consent. Additionally, for this reason, a mechanism to ensure that consent was provided in full understanding of the consequences should be introduced. Where there is no consent requirement, it would similarly be logical to include a right to appeal against transfers. The right to appeal or a right to judicial review of a decision taken by an administrative body is a well-established aspect of rule of law-based societies, and expressed in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 47); it would also boost the instruments’ credibility and overall mutual trust. Finally, the possibility, under all three decisions, for issuing states to stop transfers (withdraw certificates) at any point before actual execution/supervision has begun in executing states is important. States could make use of this option if it becomes clear that a transfer would not serve the goals of the instruments, such as social rehabilitation. FRA Opinion 8 To ensure effective implementation of the three Framework Decisions, and to stay true to their objectives, but also to ensure compliance with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular the right to human dignity (Article 1), the EU and the Member States need to take further action to ensure that the three Framework Decisions cannot be interpreted in a  manner that sees potential transferees as mere objects of transfer. Instead, all potential transferees should be involved in the process to ensure that they are aware of possibilities for transfers, and that they understand the transfer process and its consequences. Minimum rules – which could be inspired by the EU legislation on interpretation and translation, as well as on the right to information  – should be established to ensure that consent is provided based on a sufficient level of information. Similarly, when consent is not required (possible under the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners), it should be ensured that the information provided is adequate for a  sufficient level of understanding of the process and its consequences. Additionally, where consent for transfers is required, EU Member States should explicitly allow for withdrawals of such consent within a  certain time-limit given the potential consequences of transfers for individuals. Member States should also consider an appropriate remedy for cases where potential transferees object to transfers. To strengthen mutual trust and, by extension, mutual recognition, Member States should apply similar rules on how to inform persons potentially subjected to transfer and how to obtain their consent or inform them about the transfer process and its consequences.