Part II: Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation the introduction of a focal point for detention in the European Commission could help to address this issue. Furthermore, CSOs have criticised that many staff members working at the European Commission not only lack awareness of CPT and NPM mandates, but on fundamental rights in general and have stressed the need for more training in this regard. So far, there is very limited exchange between EU institutions and NPMs and the SPT. Engagement between the EU and CPT appears to be on an ad hoc basis. There are a number of suggestions how NPM and CPT expertise could be made better use of by the EU: It would be useful for the EU to include the CPT and NPMs more strategically in policy discussions, legal drafting and monitoring of the implementation of EU law. The expertise of NPMs could be collected in order to make it accessible for national and regional contexts, e.g. an information hub could be introduced at the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). The EU could support and/or establish initiatives that would facilitate substantive exchange between NPMs, the CPT and SPT, such as networks of torture monitoring bodies. These should be set up with a long-term approach in order to strengthen relationships in a sustainable manner and might also facilitate jointly written reports by NPMs to the EU in order to contribute more effectively to policy or legislative drafting processes. The EU could fund research on the relationship between mutual trust and fundamental rights specifically in human rights sensitive areas like freedom, security and justice The EU could take CPT or NPM recommendations as a basis for granting funds to EU member states. General background on role of the EU in the prevention of torture In its 2009 resolution on the Stockholm Programme,227 the European Parliament (EP) called for the construction of an EU criminal justice area to be developed through, inter alia, minimum standards for prison and detention conditions and a common set of prisoners’ rights in the EU.228 This is reiterated in the 2011 EP Written Declaration on infringement of the fundamental rights of detainees in the EU.229 The Stockholm Programme also stipulated that ensuring mutual trust between member states is still viewed as one of the main challenges for the future.230 As the principle of mutual trust implies that conditions of detention and procedural safeguards are equivalent in every State, while in reality large discrepancies exist, there is serious controversy with regard the principle’s implementation and its ramifications on fundamental rights protection in Europe. Concerns exist with regard to making sure that fundamental rights obligations of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU as well as the European Convention of Human Rights, by which all EU member states are bound, are respected when national authorities are implementing EU legislation. The European Arrest Warrant (EAW),231 including the discussions surrounding See Workshop report Vienna/Bristol 2014. European parliament resolution of 25 November 2009 on the Communication from the Commission – An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen – Stockholm programme, P7_TA(2009)0090. 228 For more information on torture prevention in the EU see the article written in the framework of this Project Birk M and Zach G, ‘Torture Prevention in the EU – Many Actors, Few Outcomes?’ in European Yearbook of Human Rights (2015, forthcoming). 229 Written Declaration on infringement of the fundamental rights of detainees, from MEPs – 06/2011, 14.02.2011. 230 European Council ‘Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens’ [2010] OJ C115/1, para 1.2.1. 231 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision [2002] OJ L190/1. 226 227 - 78 -