1 EU instruments: The Framework Decisions ▪ This chapter introduces the three Framework Decisions – on transfer of prisoners, probation and alternative sanctions, and the ESO. ▪ It also outlines the broader context in which these instruments developed. ▪ The chapter  also explores data collection and gathering of experience related to the instruments. This report addresses fundamental rights questions related to the three Framework Decisions. The decisions refer to fundamental rights only generally – they do not refer to any specific fundamental rights of persons affected, i.e. suspects, accused, sentenced persons or victims of crime. However, they do confirm that Member States are obliged to comply with fundamental rights standards (see Chapter 2). The instruments do not operate in a legal vacuum and should be seen in the context of applicable human rights standards, such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Victims’ Rights Directive. EU Member States are bound by these instruments, and the rights enshrined therein should be ensured even if the Framework Decisions do not specifically mention them. The three Framework Decisions dealt with in this report are presented schematically in Table 3, showing the full titles and short names, dates of adoption and implementation, and the number of EU Member States to which they apply. 1.1. Functioning and implementation of the Framework Decisions The Framework Decisions are intended to be more effective than preceding inter-governmental agreements by drawing on the principle of mutual recognition and the fact that all Member States are participating. To expedite the transfer process, the three Framework Decisions set clear time limits and standardised procedures. The process that the three Framework Decisions seek to regulate can schematically be described as follows (see Figure 1): A crime has been committed in an EU Member State. However, pursuant to these instruments, the suspect, accused or sentenced person can have their sentence executed, or the measure imposed on them supervised, in another EU Member State in order to permit them to be in a country in which they have closer family or work/study connections. The state in which the criminal proceedings were instituted becomes the ‘issuing state’ if it issues a mutual recognition decision. The issuing state forwards the decision to what then becomes the ‘executing state’.16 If the executing state recognises the decision, it takes on the responsibilities of the issuing state for the execution of the sentence or the supervision of the measure concerned. A possibility to return someone is provided for only under the European Supervision Order; specifically, if a suspect or accused person breaches the supervision requirements, the executing state may return the person to the issuing state. 16 Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA, Art. 1 (d); Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA, Art. 2 (9); Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA, Art. 4 (d). 25