Criminal detention and alternatives: fundamental rights aspects in EU cross-border transfers reservations (see Recital 4 of the Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions).40 Moreover, the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders adopted a Model Agreement on the Transfer of Foreign Prisoners and recommendations on the treatment of foreign prisoners in 1985.41 In the Model Agreement, transfer is also based on a system of mutual respect for national sovereignty and jurisdiction and on the consent of the sentenced person. Although only providing a ‘template’ for both bilateral and multilateral agreements, it shows the global community’s commitment to fostering such practice. In 2012, the UNODC published a Handbook on the International Transfer of Sentenced Persons.42 Also at the United Nations level, the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime43 and the Convention against Corruption44 explicitly refer to the possibility for state parties to enter into bilateral or multilateral agreements on the transfer to their territory of persons sentenced to imprisonment or other forms of deprivation of liberty. The EU itself is party to the two conventions (since 2004 and 2008, respectively). 1.6. Gathering experiences and collecting data All three Framework Decisions require designating a central authority to act as point of contact for incoming and outgoing requests for transfers.45 States are to inform the General Secretariat of the Council which authorities are competent to act under the Framework Decision. Pursuant to the Framework Decisions, central authorities are established to coordinate transfers and mutual recognition of decisions and to act as national points of contact in these matters. They have a duty to communicate with each other and to engage in information exchanges for the smooth operation of the Framework Decisions. Central authorities shall exchange information on suspects, their compliance with supervision measures, their criminal records, and changes in their circumstances. Research shows that, in general, states rely on courts, the Ministry of Justice, the police, prison and probation services, and diplomatic missions. 40 Four other EU Member States have also signed the convention. Among the non-EU Member States, there are 6 additional state parties and one state that has only signed. 41 UN, Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) (1985). 42 UNODC (2012). 43 United Nations (UN), Convention against transnational organized crime (Palermo Convention), 15 November 2000, Art. 17. 44 UN, Convention against corruption, 31 October 2003, Art. 45. 45 Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA, Art. 2; Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA, Art. 3; Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA, Art. 6. 32 Judicial Atlas The European Judicial Network has an interactive web tool to facilitate judicial cooperation. The Judicial Atlas allows users to identify the locally competent authority that can receive a  request for judicial cooperation and provides a  fast and efficient channel for the direct transmission of requests regarding a  selected measure. The tool offers information on all 28 Member States, candidate countries and associated European countries. The site also offers information on the three Framework Decisions, as well as on other European instruments on judicial cooperation. Source: European Judicial Network, Judicial Atlas According to FRA’s findings, 14 Member States46 collect information about their experiences with transfers through the Framework Decision on transfer of prisoners. 12 Member States47 do not gather information on such transfers. No information was available from Malta and Sweden. When one turns to the Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions and the Framework Decision on the ESO, the extent of information collected by Member States’ competent authorities drops: 17 and 19 Member States do not provide for the compilation of transfer-related information, respectively. FRA’s findings also show that only a few competent national authorities collate personal data, or at least only few of them are required to do so on a legal basis: eight Member States for the Framework Decision on the transfer of prisoners, five for the Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions, and none for the Framework Decision on the ESO. This could be problematic because data on individual cases are necessary for the overall improvement of national mechanisms for accessing treatment and assistance. Privacy safeguards must certainly also be in place to rule out incorrect usage of the data. Promising practices in Member States The Framework Decisions have not been frequently utilised and practical examples of activities that go beyond the standard operational procedure of institutional collaboration are therefore rather modest. Out of the 28 Member States, FRA identified six48 with 46 Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal and the United Kingdom. 47 Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. 48 Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the United Kingdom.