FOREIGN PRISONERS IN EUROPE : AN ANALYSIS OF THE 2012 COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL PENAL POLICY

The issue of migration is attracting significant media and political attention in Europe. Migration has been one of the causes of the rapid rise in the number and proportion offoreigners in national prisons. In response to this problem, the Council of Europe s Committee of Ministers in 2012 adopted a recommendation concerning the treatment offoreign prisoners. This article analyses the penological and human rights implications of this recommendation in relation to its objectives to reduce the number of foreigners in custody, improve the regime experienced by foreign offenders and enhance the prospects for their successful reintegration. While the 2012 Recommendation makes important contributions to regional penal policy, it also contains notable gaps and limitations. The paper discusses the significance ofomissions in relation to the (potential) role of consular epresentatives, dealing with nationals detained abroad and the use of inter-state transfers. Despite these criticisms and political resistance to some proposals in this field, there appears to be wide spread support for the recommendation at a practitioner level. It may also have significance beyond domestic policy. There is a new and growing sub-category offoreign prisoners in Europe: the international prisoners convicted by international criminal courts that are serving their sentences in the prison systems of cooperating states. The paper concludes with a discussion of the potential influence regional penal policy can have on the implementation of international custodial sanctions.


Wile
political and media attention is very much focused on the freduction or prevention of migration into Europe, regional law has also recently had to address the penal consequence of the movement of people across international borders: a growing population of foreign prisoners.While systems that facilitate the transfer of sentences and measures to offenders' home countries can help reduce numbers in prison, 'such agreements alone cannot solve the problem... [a] solution can, and should also be sought... through an improvement in prison conditions and the treatment of foreigners'.'In 2012, therefore, the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers adopted a new recommendation concerning foreign prisoners.This paper analyses this recommendation in light of its reductionist regime improvement and reintegration objectives, and assesses the contribution it makes to regional soft law and policy.The evolution of soft law in this field and the political realities associated with drafting soft law at the regional level are highlighted throughout the paper.Notable gaps in the recommendation's scope and provisions are discussed in detail.The article concludes with some thoughts on the potential of the 2012 Recommendation to impact upon a distinct sub-group of foreign prisoners: persons convicted and sentenced by international criminal courts that are serving their sentences in domestic prisons.

Foreign Prisoners in Europe: A New Recommendation
Both the number and proportion of foreigners in European prisons continue to rise.In 2013, within the Council of Europe, foreigners represented, on average, 22.8% of the prison population.Some countries have to 1  deal with a population comprised of between 30% and 70% foreigners.'For other countries, this is not such a significant issue.In Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Macedonia and Turkey, for instance, foreigners represent less than 5% of the prison population.The considerable variation between countries has been attributed to factors such as geographical location, economic development and immigration policies. 4While it may be true that 'one should keep in mind that the phenomenon of overrepresentation of foreigners in custody is not at all problematic in Eastern European countries,' 5 the fact remains that there are in excess of 150,000 foreigners in European prisons. 6reover, percentages do not always reveal the reality of the day-today situation in domestic prisons.For example, while foreigners make up over 50% of the prison population in Liechtenstein, this represents only 5 prisoners.In contrast, while foreigners make up less than 5% of the Rus-sian prison population, this represents over 30,000 individuals. 7It should be further noted that this population has become increasingly diverse.In the UK, for example, foreign prisoners come from over 150 different countries. 8reign prisoners are over-represented in comparison to their numbers in the general population. 9This over-representation has been attributed to a range of factors, including the increased mobility of individuals across territorial boundaries, resulting in crime trips, 0 the disadvantages faced by foreigners during the criminal justice process (increased targeting by police, language barriers, lack of access to legal aid and discriminatory sentencing) and the increasingly punitive approach to immigration (related) offences.
Not only are foreigners more likely to be deprived of their liberty, they also often experience greater hardships during their time in custody than national prisoners.Non-nationals face challenges and obstacles due to overt and covert discrimination, isolation, a lack of linguistic proficiency and delays in relation to decisions about legal status.The de jure equality of rights granted by national law does not translate in practice; foreign prisoners often experience de facto discrimination at all stages of the criminal justice and penal process due to the application of criteria that they cannot fulfil and the prioritisation of resources for nationals.
The management of increasingly large and diverse foreign populations in overcrowded prison systems designed to deal with the needs of national prisoners is challenging.Until recently, policies or programmes dealing with this issue tended to be localised and piecemeal.This contrasted with the UNODC recommendation that clear strategies be put in place to deal with foreign prisoners as a distinct category of individuals with particular management and welfare needs." Given the continuing rise in the numbers of, and the worsening situation for, foreign prisoners in Europe, the COE Committee of Ministers felt it was time to re-visit the issue and revise or replace its 1984 Recommendation to member states concerning foreign prisoners. 1 2In addition to measures that would ensure the individual and equal treatment of foreign prisoners, the Committee of Ministers felt that a new or revised recommendation should be adopted to provide 'human and tangible long-term solutions based on European best practice'. 3 particular, they felt that an updated or new recommendation should address the number of foreigners in detention, their treatment while imprisoned, policies aimed at preparing foreign prisoners for release and reintegration (including transfer to their country of origin), the training of 11 For further information please refer to: Chapter 4 "Foreign Prisoners" in Handbook on Prisoners with Special Needs, (New York: UNODC, 2009), pp.79-101.While the UN did introduce Recommendations on the Treatment of Foreign Prisoners (UNRTFP) in 1985 (Annexed to the UN Model Agreement on the Transfer of Foreign Prisoners) these are very brief and do not provide sufficient guidance for prison authorities.12 Rec.R (84) 12 concerning foreign prisoners.staff and the facilitation and maintenance of social, legal and consulate support. 14e Committee of Ministers is assisted in the development of penological standards by the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC).The CDPC, comprised of state representatives with relevant expertise or experience, has drafted over 150 resolutions and recommendations that set standards on a range of penological issues and dealing with specific categories of prisoners since its creation in 1953.The CDPC relies on one of its permanent standing committees, the Council for Penological Cooperation (PC-CP) to help it develop recommendations.Created in 1981,15 the PC-CP is comprised of a working group of experts 1 6 elected by the CDPC in their personal capacity and a larger committee of representatives of member states designated by their governments that sits in plenary.
From the outset, the PC-CP working group decided to replace the 1984 recommendation 1 7 to ensure that the new recommendation would be in line with the 2006 European Prison Rules.18In addition to the input from and debate by governmental representatives and experts, 1 9 the recommenda-tion was drafted with reference to European Court of Human Rights (EC-tHR) jurisprudence, European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) standards, recent studies on the treatment of foreign prisoners and presentations made by consultants. 2 0The recommendation 2 ' and its accompanying commentary were approved by the CDPC during its 6 2 nd plenary session in June 201222 and adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 October 2012 at the 11521 meeting of the Ministers' Deputies.
The 2012 Recommendation adopts a human rights approach to the penological treatment of foreigners, which dictates the application of the principles of equalisation and individualisation. 2 ' The recommendation seeks to ensure equal and individual treatment throughout the criminal justice and penal process by focusing attention on three key areas: reductionism, regime improvement and reintegration.

Reducing the Number of Foreigners in European Prisons
Foreigners in Europe are less likely to receive bail, be sentenced to community sanctions and measures or be granted conditional release. 24In other words, they are more likely to be placed in and kept in custody than nationals.The COE advocates a reductionist approach, which involves 'both "front-door" policies to reduce the input of prisoners into the system and "back-door" policies to limit their length of stay in prison'. 2 ' The 2012 Recommendation builds upon previous Council of Europe recommendations 26 by advocating a reductionist policy specifically for non-nationals.
From the early stages, the PC-CP decided that the recommendation should deal not only with persons in custody but should also address the situation of foreign persons who could be remanded in custody or imprisoned. 27Contrary to human rights law, remand in custody tends to be the norm, rather than the exception, for foreigners accused of crimes.Placed in the context of heightened public and political anxiety about foreign nationals, immigration and crime, detention is a highly probable outcome, particularly if an individual's offence history is unknown.over the last decade 2 9 to the extent that in 2011, foreigners represented, on average, 38 per cent of the regional pre-trial detention population. 3is over-representation is due to the fact that foreigners are not benefitting from alternatives to pre-trial detention."The new recommendation therefore urges judges to consider the full range of custodial sanctions and measures and the impact of imposing custodial sanctions on foreign offenders and their families. 3 2To ensure equal treatment and reduce the number of foreigners in pre-trial detention, national authorities should apply legal requirements flexibly or implement special measures that enable foreigners to meet pre-conditions for non-custodial measures. 3In addition to front door policies, the 2012 Recommendation also supports back door policies by advocating that foreigners be considered for release as soon as they become eligible and stating that the outcome of release decisions should not be unduly influenced or prolonged by delays caused by the finalisation of immigration status decisions. 3 4reigners are regularly excluded from consideration for alternatives to imprisonment or release pending trial on the basis of their legal status or associated factors (lack of a permanent address, job or family links in the detaining state).This denial is often based on an assumption that foreigners pose a greater flight risk. 35The 2012 Recommendation calls on states to ensure that an individual's residence status is not an automatic bar to eligibility for non-custodial measures in practice and that all custody-related decisions are based on individual-specific and objectively verified fact.1 6 As for national suspects and offenders, custody should only be used when strictly necessary and as a measure of last resort after an assessment of the individual's circumstances.1 7 In addition to advocating the use of alternatives to custody and early release, the 2012 Recommendation also supports a reduction in the number of non-nationals subject to criminal and community sanctions and measures through transfer mechanisms.The recommendation notes the availability and potential benefits of systems that facilitate transfers to countries with which the offender has ties. 8Such mechanisms may enhance the likelihood of alternate sanctions and early release on probation for foreigners. 9e 2012 Recommendation therefore advocates a reductionist approach using front, mid and back door policies.Its provisions are not designed to encourage the grant of automatic rights to such measures to foreign prisoners, but rather to ensure that foreign nationals are not discriminated against in practice and that each individual is properly considered for all available and approach measures. 40It represents an attempt to avoid discrimination currently resulting from the application of seemingly neutral criteria and, thereby, reduce the number of foreigners behind bars in Europe.

Improving the Regime for Foreign Prisoners in Europe
While this reductionist policy is a key contribution, the 2012 Recommendation focuses on the improvement of regimes experienced by foreign detainees. 4' National penal law does not typically distinguish regimes on the basis of nationality.A recent study notes, however, that the lack of specialised regulation can generate unequal opportunities for foreigners on account of their social isolation, religious and cultural differences and communication barriers. 42To improve regimes, the 2012 Recommendation identifies key areas of specific need where there is scope for positive discrimination.In addition, it addresses the need to have specialised staff, reduce language barriers and alleviate isolation.

Specific Needs and Positive Discrimination
The EPR state that 'imprisonment is by the deprivation of liberty a punishment in itself and therefore the regime for sentenced prisons shall not aggravate the suffering inherent in imprisonment'. 4 3 While the 1984 Recommendation noted the importance of preventing and counteracting the disadvantages faced by foreigners in detention, 44 the 2012 Recommendation provides greater guidance to enable prison authorities to prevent de facto discrimination. 45To ensure the individual and equal treatment of foreign prisoners and the accommodation of their welfare needs, 46 the 2012 Recommendation identifies a range of aspects of prison life that require special attention.Numerous provisions advocate a culturally-sensitive application of rules relating to hygiene, clothing, nutrition, recreation, freedom of be-lief and healthcare. 7For example, prison uniforms must not offend the cultural or religious sensibilities of prisoners and if they are not provided, prisoners should, subject to safety and security, be allowed to wear attire required by their religion or culture 48 (such as a turban or head scarf 4 9 ).
Where possible, religious dietary requirements should be accommodated °by, for example, providing kosher food or meals at appropriate times during Ramadan. 5" Steps should be taken to ensure foreign prisoners receive equivalent medical care to nationals and that healthcare professionals are trained and provided with resources to work with the specific needs of foreigners. 52It was during the drafting of some of these provisions that the lengthiest debates occurred, as states were cautious about approving rules that may be perceived as creating preferential treatment. 3The aim is to ensure equal, not preferential, treatment, and in many cases the provisions highlight or provide detail on existing obligations.The assertion is not that national prison systems are deliberately treating detained foreigners in a lesser manner but that equality in law has proven inadequate to ensure equality in practice.Positive discrimination is necessary to ensure that foreign prisoners have the same quality of life as nationals.

Specialisation
Regime improvement requires the implementation of the 2012 Recommendation by specifically recruited, suitably trained and specialised staff.54Accordingly, the recommendation urges that persons that work with foreign prisoners should be selected on the basis of their cultural sensitivity, interaction skills and linguistic abilities."Moreover, all authorities, agencies, professionals and associations that have regular contact with foreign suspects and offenders should receive training on relevant rules, as well as the underlying cultural and ethical bases for treating such persons appropriately. 5" All persons that work with foreign prisoners should receive training to ensure respect for cultural diversity, understanding of the problems faced by such prisoners and to enhance their linguistic abilities. 5 7Specific training should be provided to staff involved in the admissions process 5 8 and medical and healthcare staff should be trained on the specific diseases and conditions which foreign prisoners may have and culturally appropriate methods of interaction. 9Training should be regularly reviewed to ensure it reflects contemporary standards and enables staff to deal with current populations and the difficulties they face.° In addition to general training, the 2012 Recommendation advocates the creation of posts or roles for specialists responsible for working with foreign prisoners specifically 1 and liaising with relevant persons and bodies on matters related to such prisoners. 2A more focused approach to recruitment, training and specialisation can have a positive impact on improving communication within prisons.

Overcoming Language Barriers
The inability to communicate in the language most commonly spoken in a prison reduces a foreign prisoner's ability to cope with their situation. 6 3Indeed, language difficulties 'permeate and exacerbate almost all other problems' faced by foreign prisoners. 64The EPR advises prison authorities to ensure special arrangements are in place to meet the needs of prisoners who belong to linguistic minorities. 65The 2012 Recommendation builds on this direction by advocating that prison authorities aim to ensure that foreigners can communicate effectively, whether through learning, access to competent interpreters or translation services. 66Provisions relating to the facilitation of communication can be found throughout the recommendation.For example, on admission, foreign prisoners should be greeted by staff with linguistic abilities and provided with information about their rights, the regime and procedures in a language they understand. 6 7Some states have information packs available in the major languages spoken by foreign prisoners. 6 8In most countries, however, this is not available, and even where it is, there is often a residual population not provided for. 69hile it is recognised that it may not be possible to have pre-prepared materials in all languages, linguistic support can help foreigners through what is often 'one of the most delicate phases of imprisonment'. 70It is therefore 63 Van  imperative that information is provided orally in a language the prisoner can understand when it is not available in writing.
Linguistic support should go beyond the provision of legal and technical information to include social and cultural aspects of prison life.An inability to communicate can prevent participation in purposeful activities" and lead to deep moral distress and self-harm. 72Prisons should therefore provide opportunities for prisoners and staff to learn a common language. 3Access to papers, books, radio and television programmes in a native language can help to reduce isolation and contribute to the facilitation of reintegration for prisoners that will return to their home country. 4Foreign prisoners that will be deported should be provided with opportunities to learn the language of the country that will receive them if they do not know it. 75Communication is particularly important when it comes to medical care. 6The 2012 Recommendation highlights the need to ensure access to competent interpreters who understand medical terminology and cultural approaches to illness and respect confidentiality (irrespective of the formality of the arrangement). 7Even where it is not mentioned explicitly, the facilitation of communication is a fundamental underlying principle that should inform all interaction . 7This is because of the key role such measures can play in alleviating isolation.

Alleviating Isolation
Prison authorities should aim to place prisoners in facilities 'close to their homes or places of social rehabilitation'i 9 This is difficult to achieve for non-national, non-resident prisoners who will, more likely than not, be expelled following the completion of their sentence.Foreign prisoners are more likely to become isolated, and thereby face increased risks of mental health problems, self-harm and suicide. 8" The 2012 Recommendation, therefore, directs prison authorities to make allocation decisions on the basis of the need to alleviate the potential isolation of non-nationals and to facilitate their contact with the outside world. 8To achieve these goals, it is important to utilise social support mechanisms that are both internal and external to the prison estate.
Prison authorities can reduce isolation by placing prisoners from the same country or cultural, linguistic or religious background in the same wing or prison. 8 2Such an allocation policy enables prisoners to work and spend leisure time with prisoners it may be easier to communicate or associate with.Such decisions, however, require careful consideration of the individual needs and social reintegration requirements of each prisoner and must be balanced against safety and security factors."'The danger exits that this approach will create hierarchies, sub-cultures and tension. 84oreover, it can lead to the further isolation of foreigners within the prison estate.Not only will they be separated from detaining state nationals (which may hinder reintegration if the prisoner remains in the country)" but some prisoners may be placed with foreigners who are more different to them than detaining state nationals.For example, Irish prisoners housed in the UK may have more in common with British rather than Somali prisoners. 6This is why it is important that allocation is not based solely on nationality grounds but on the social and reintegration needs of individuals . 7Care must also be taken when creating specialist facilities to house foreign prisoners.While the concentration of non-nationals allows for specialisation and the use of resources for specifically tailored programmes, recent regional practice has demonstrated that such facilities can focus, instead, on fast-tracking the removal of non-nationals.
In addition to alleviating isolation within the prison, it is also vitally important to ensure the maintenance of contacts with the outside world.It has been shown that non-national, non-resident prisoners often lost contact with their families during imprisonment, causing isolation and hindering the likelihood of successful reintegration. 8 8The 2012 Recommendation therefore suggests that prison authorities take steps to facilitate the maintenance of relations between foreign prisoners and their families living abroad.These include placing prisoners in prisons close to major airports, enabling prisoners to inform their families of their location, adopting a flexible approach to rules relating to the time of calls, 89 length and scheduling of visits, 90 the language that is spoken during visits, assisting indigent prisoners with costs and providing prisoners' families with information and support wherever possible. 9" Special measures should be taken to fa-86 Van  cilitate visits from and contact with children. 92This is especially important for female prisoners who were the primary carers of children living abroad, who often experience extreme anguish and distress due to the separation. 9' If it is in the best interests of the child and suitable conditions are available, infants should be allowed to remain with their mother. 94For other children, visits should be planned to take account of the child's availability and be implemented in a child-friendly manner that permits open contact. 95Costs and school commitments may make it necessary to consider the use of video-links. 9 6obation agencies, consular representatives, NGOs, and volunteers can also provide support.The 2012 Recommendation highlights their importance by advocating that prison authorities enable prisoners to contact such groups and facilitate their visits. 97Just as the role of community agencies and volunteers was encouraged in the 1984 Recommendation, 9 8 the new recommendation acknowledges the role these groups can play in the support and reintegration of foreign prisoners. 99 and the Swedish Bridges to Abroad, often provide the social support, legal advice and financial assistance to nationals detained abroad that prison authorities cannot.00 The aim is to optimise and normalise contact through the adoption of a flexible and accommodating approach and, ultimately, to reduce isolation and facilitate reintegration.

Reintegrating Foreign Prisoners
The EPR make rehabilitation the sole aim governing the implementation of sentences of imprisonment 0 1 and state that 'all prisoners shall have the benefit of arrangements designed to assist them in returning to free society after release'. 10 2Whether the term rehabilitation, reintegration, re-entry or resocialisation is used, the goal is to ensure that the penal process prepares prisoners for release and enhances their ability to function in society when they are free.13 The 1984 Recommendation noted that the social resettlement of foreign prisoners may require the adoption of particular measures that take account of factors such as nationality, language, religion, culture, length of sentences and the likelihood of expulsion.104 The Committee of Ministers highlighted the need for the new recommendation to cover the social reintegration of foreign prisoners.It therefore states that the prison regime should focus on preparing foreign prisoners for release and social reintegration.10 While this is true for all prisoners, the implementation of this principle poses challenges when applied to foreign prisoners.The new recommendation outlines steps that can be taken to prepare prisoners for release (both within and outside of the detaining state) and to facilitate transfers to the prisoners' country of origin to serve their sentences.The 2012 Recommendation deals with reintegration from a range of potential scenarios.The difficulty lies with the fact that prison authorities often do not know whether an individual will remain in the detaining state, be transferred to another state to serve his sentence or be removed from the country at the end of his sentence.

Preparing Foreign Prisoners for Release
Foreign prisoners face difficulties in accessing work and education and are often denied prison leave 10 6 and placement in more relaxed regimes.While they are not formally excluded, they often cannot access places due to language barriers or the prioritisation of places for nationals who will be reintegrated into the detaining state.107 Leave is often denied due to assumptions about an increased risk of absconding and progression is unlikely due to the current focus on removal.°8 These denials not only reduce the chances of foreign prisoners receiving conditional release, but they also result in a failure to prepare them for release.To overcome this de facto discrimination, the 2012 Recommendation asks prison authorities to take positive measures to ensure that foreign prisoners have access to a balanced programme of activities, and, in particular, that access is not restricted on the basis of the likelihood of transfer, extradition or expulsion., 0 9 Positive measures can include help with language requirements or the provision of alternative programmes which focus on reintegration in other states. 1 The 2012 Recommendation specifically requests that foreign prisoners have equal opportunities when it comes to access to and To prepare foreign prisoners for release, the 2012 Recommendation advocates that foreign prisoners be granted prison leave where appropriate and be assisted with making or re-establishing contact with family, friends and relevant support agencies. 1 Leave decisions should be based on obj ective facts about the individual in question and should not be based on generalised perceptions of risk. 11 4The flexible application of requirements in relation to a permanent address and the assistance of NGOs can help to improve the likelihood of temporary leave being granted. 5The present reality is, however, that many countries focus on the rehabilitation of their own nationals to the neglect of non-nationals.Moreover, the focus of regional instruments seems to suggest that the rehabilitation of nonnationals is best served by transferring them to their own country to serve their sentences.

Transferring Foreign Nationals to their Country of Origin to Serve their Sentences
The 2012 Recommendation draws its provision on the transfer of sentences from existing instruments promulgated by the COE, EU and UN. 116While the number of provisions on transfers was reduced during the drafting process following comments from the CDPC Bureau, transfer remains one of the core aspects of contemporary penal policy for dealing with foreign prisoners.According to the 2012 Recommendation, prisoners should only be transferred to a country with which they have links, if the move would be in line with their fundamental human rights and facilitate their social reintegration. 11 7The social reintegration focus reflects the importance placed on it by current regional mechanisms" 8 and extends the use of transfer beyond those already sentenced to terms of imprisonment to include those remanded in custody and subject to conditional measures, probation or alternative sanctions. 9To increase the likelihood of transfer mechanisms being used, the 2012 Recommendation urges that foreign prisoners be provided with information about them in a language they understand 1 20 and that national judiciaries be provided with reports about the possibilities and desirability of transferring individuals before sentencing. 121Transfer to a country with which a person has legal and social links should enhance the chances of successful reintegration, at the very least by making preparation for release less complicated.Whether a prisoner will be allowed to remain, be transferred, or indeed, be expelled, ultimately depends on decisions about the individual's immigration status.

Status Decisions
All prisoners should benefit from sentence plans that outline the work, education and steps that should be taken in order to prepare for release with a view to their successful reintegration, 122  try the prisoner will live in after release. 23The 2012 Recommendation follows the UN direction to ensure the existence of strategies to deal with the preparation for release of the different categories of foreign prisoners: those who will remain in the country, those who will be deported and those who have immigration decisions pending. 124r prisoners allowed to remain in the detaining state after release, the 2012 Recommendation notes that they must be provided with the same care and support from prison, probation and social welfare agencies as nationals.121 Studies have shown that national probation services often cannot and do not cater for foreigners. 1 26 In Europe, the focus is often on the removal of foreign prisoners following their sentence.At present, 'communication and collaboration between the authorities of the country of imprisonment and the home country for the purposes of post-release support is usually non-existent'. 2 7 When a decision has been made to expel or transfer an individual, the 2012 Recommendation requires that efforts be made to contact and liaise with the relevant authorities in the receiving state to ensure both immediate support upon their return and the facilitation of their reintegration into society. 1 28e effectiveness of sentence plans depends, however, on measures being put in place in good time.129 In order for prison authorities to implement effective sentence plans, it is crucial that they know where the prisoner will go.Foreign offenders may have been in the country illegally, or may lose their right to remain during their time in prison or as a result of their criminal conviction.De Ridder, Beyens and Snacken note that 'the dynamic character of the foreigner's residence status [means that] the geographical character after... release is often uncertain during imprisonment'." ' The 2012 Recommendation therefore asks that decisions on legal status and the prisoner's situation after release be determined as early as possible during their sentence. 131

Gaps and Limitations of the 2012 Recommendation
As this paper has so far demonstrated, the 2012 Recommendation has developed regional penal policy by providing detailed suggestions that practitioners can use to improve the situation of detained foreign offenders.Despite the progressive nature of the recommendation in many regards, it contains gaps and limitations.Opportunities were missed during drafting to ensure the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of reintegration measures for foreign prisoners.An overly deferential approach to existing legal regimes resulted in a failure to adopt provisions outlining the role and duties of consular representatives (towards nationals detained abroad) and procedural safeguards in the international transfer process.

Consular Representatives
The 2012 Recommendation recognises that authorities that deal with foreign suspects and offenders require access to a 'coherent set of guiding principles in line with Council of Europe standards'., 3 This includes authorities that work outside, but with, criminal justice and carceral systems.The 1984 Recommendation focused on two sources of support for foreign prisoners; community agencies and consular representatives. 1 33 Rather than have a separate section dealing with community agencies, the 2012 Recommendation refers to a wide range of bodies (competent authorities, approved associations, relevant support agencies, probation bodies, community agencies, volunteers) and explicitly deals with rights of access to and the role they can play in relation to admissions, contact with the outside world and preparation for release. 134 contrast, a narrow approach was adopted with regards to consular representatives.The 1984 Recommendation contained several substantive provisions that stated that consular authorities should assist their detained nationals, visit them regularly, offer resettlement assistance, provide reading materials and produce information leaflets outlining possibilities for assistance. 3' The Committee of Ministers instructed that the new recommendation should address foreign prisoners' relations with the national authorities of their country of origin including embassies and consulate services. 3 6In earlier drafts, the section on consular representatives was organised around the foreign prisoner's right to communicate with consular representatives, the prison authorities' obligation to facilitate such communication and the role of consular representatives. 3 7This latter group of provisions was removed, however, because of the CDPC Bureau's view that they were not necessary due to the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR)." 3 ' The PC-CP Working Group revised the draft, leaving only provisions that mirrored the functions established by this treaty. 3 9While these reduced provisions survived the first PC-CP Plenary intact, this section and other provisions discussing the role of consular representatives were completely removed in Spring 2012.141 It is unfortunate that the drafting process resulted in the removal of provisions dealing with a key source of support for foreign prisoners both during their detention and following release.The decision to remove these provisions was surprising given that the previous recommendation directly addressed consular representatives and the Committee of Minister's terms of reference had expressly requested that their role be included in the new recommendation.14The 2012 Recommendation focuses only on the foreign prisoner's right of access to consular representatives and the duty of prison authorities to facilitate such communication. 142While it does suggest that visits from consular representatives can reduce social isolation, 14 1 this provision is directed at prison authorities.The only express direction contained in the new recommendation suggests that a consular representative can assist with the provision of assistance for return to a state with which the prisoner has links upon release. 1 44

Nationals Detained Abroad
The lack of political will to include provisions addressed to consular representatives means that an opportunity was missed to establish minimum standards of care towards nationals detained abroad.The VCCR does not set out any duties or standards of care in relation to the provision of support to prisoners.Rather, it is restricted to a pronouncement of the rights of consular officers to be informed about, visit, communicate with and organise legal representation for nationals in detention. 1 45The UNODC has recommended that consular officials produce information leaflets setting out details of the services they can provide to nationals in detention or seeking transfer home that should be made available upon admission. 1 46he 2012 Recommendation also advocates the provision of such information. 1 47However, it is not addressed directly to consular representatives and does not create any expectations in relation to the (quality of) servic-es they should provide to their detained nationals.Despite calls from the European Organisation for Probation (CEP) for the new recommendation to include rules that would 'stimulate or maintain consular interest in the welfare of their citizens imprisoned abroad,' 1 4 states opted to remove draft rules discussing the role of consular representatives.While some consular representatives provide a 'proactive, helpful and caring' source of support, many are indifferent to the needs of their nationals and are unwilling to provide any assistance. 1 49 This missed opportunity is unfortunate given that consular representatives are often a prisoner's 'only life-line'.
The 2012 Recommendation could have contributed to the development of minimum standards on the social, legal and financial support that consular representatives should provide to their detained nationals and their families."' 1Instead, states adopted a legalistic approach which merely restates rights and duties already established in the EPR. 1 2 Not only, therefore, does the 2012 Recommendation fail to add anything of value to regional penal policy in this regard, it actually drops the direct guidance to consular representatives contained in the 1984 Recommendation.Moreover, there was absolutely no discussion of the role diplomatic representatives could play in facilitating transfers and providing legal documents.While this cautious approach was justified on the basis of deference to an existing treaty, this argument is weak.The VCCR was in effect when the 1984 Recommendation was adopted and the 1984 Rec-ommendation was applicable to practice in member states when the 2012 Recommendation was being drafted.The failure to provide the consular representatives of European states with guidance on how to support their nationals detained abroad is not only unfortunate but strange given that a majority of European prisoners detained abroad are detained within Europe, often in neighbouring countries. 53This deliberate omission points towards the reality that this is really a recommendation for European states on how to deal with non-European prisoners.For European nationals, the focus seems to be on transferring them back to their country of origin.

Transfer to the Prisoner's Country of Origin
The 1984 Recommendation noted that transfers should be considered due to the advantages for prisoners' social resettlement. 5 4The Committee of Ministers advised that the new recommendation should deal with the 'legal systems and management policies' in member states that deal with preparation for release, including mechanisms used to transfer prisoners to their country of origin during detention or after release.155During the drafting process, however, the inclusion of a separate section on transfers was met with strong reactions from the CDPC Bureau.It felt that the recommendation should not address transfers given that there was an existing legal framework in operation.156 This contrasted with the views expressed by the CDPC's other standing committee (PC-OP) that the proposed provisions 153 Van  were not contrary to current treaty law The CDPC's deferential position prevailed again and was supported by PC-CP state representatives.The section was reduced at the first PC-CP Plenary to two provisions (on state cooperation for justice and reintegration purposes and the need to take prisoners' views into account 1 5 7 ), only to be removed in its entirety at the second PC-CP Plenary." 5 What remains are references to transfer scattered throughout the recommendation and a basic principle.
The basic principle states that 'decisions to transfer foreign prisoners to a state with which they have links shall be taken with respect for human rights, in the interests of justice and with regard to the need to socially reintegrate such prisoners'. 5 9While this goes some way to ensuring that states consider the individual's ties, possibilities for social reintegration and potential for human rights violations, these basic safeguards do not go far enough.Transfers can violate prisoners' rights on several grounds, including the right to family life, being sent to a prison with poor conditions and/or a regime that does not facilitate social reintegration or results in treatment that constitutes torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. 160he 2012 Recommendation fails to ensure that rehabilitation remains the primary justification for transfers.This is particularly worrying given the movement from a consensual system under the Council of Europe Convention 161 and the UN Model Agreement, 16 2 to a compulsory system under the COE Additional Protocol 163 and the EU Framework Decision. 16 4 fast-track procedure for compulsory transfers under the EU Framework Decision entered into force in December 2011.65Despite delays in operationalising the system on account of the need for states to introduce implementing legislation, the political priority accorded to transfers could mean that it will be used as an efficient mechanism for transferring European prisoners back to their country of origin.166 While social reintegration is the stated goal for such transfers, 16 7 a recent study highlighted that the system is likely to undermine this goal due to problems associated with ensuring prisoner opinions are informed, deciding where the prisoner 'lives' and the lack of judicial review. 1 68 Although a draft rule requiring states to take prisoners' views into account was removed from the 2012 Recommendation, this is required under the EU Framework Decision.169 However, the EU Framework Decision's procedure is problematic given its sequence and the lack of accessible information.Prisoners will have to give their opinion (typically without legal advice) before they have been given information about the regime, conditions of detention, sentence adaptation or release procedures in the proposed receiving state. 1 70 Moreover, this information is often unavailable. 1 7 1his means that the prisoner's view will be uninformed.Although the 2012 Recommendation advocates that authorities provide prisoners with information on conditions of imprisonment, prison regimes and possibilities for release and assist prisoners to seek independent advice about the consequences of transfers, 1 72  information or advice should be provided.It does however outline that the assessment of any potential risks should be made by appropriately trained persons with access to objective and independent information about the human rights situation in relevant countries. 73States should therefore consider creating and maintaining a regional database to hold this crucial information and apply the recommendation's provision at an appropriate point, i.e. before the prisoner has to give his opinion.
Compulsory transfers under the EU Framework Decision are justified by the fact that the prisoner will be sent to where he 'lives'. 1 74However, the lack of guidance on how to define or determine where an individual lives (or for how long they need to have lived there for) may result in such assessments being 'totally arbitrary'. 175The UN believes that transfers should not aggravate a prisoner's situation.176Yet it is likely that the EU system will be used to transfer large numbers of citizens back to less affluent countries with prison systems already under strain from a lack of investment, overcrowding and poor conditions; thus, prospects for rehabilitation and resettlement may be reduced rather than enhanced.177 While the Framework Decision pays lip service to the notion of rehabilitation, states cannot refuse to accept a prisoner on the ground that the transfer will not be conducive to his or her reintegration.178 This mechanism prioritises sending prisoners to where they previously 'lived' or more precisely, to remove them from the detaining state.
The 2012 Recommendation did not go far enough on transfers.It omits safeguards in relation to the right to participate in, and to appeal the outcomes of, the decision-making process to ensure compulsory transfers are not abused.It should have advocated guarantees to information and access to legal aid and judicial review There is an increasing risk that transfers will be used as a managerial tool to reduce the number of prisoners in one state, often by sending prisoners back to countries ill-equipped to receive or deal with them.Rather than being regarded as a rehabilitation tool, transfer is increasingly being viewed and used as a removal tool. 1 79 Despite the fact that the 2012 Recommendation encourages the facilitation of continuity of treatment by sending information about activities and programmes participated in, 80 the chances of successful reintegration are limited if the prisoner has limited links with the country in question and does not want to go.

International Penal Law, Policy and Practice
Up to this point, this paper has analysed the 2012 Recommendation concerning foreign prisoners in light of the goals established by the Committee of Ministers for the renewal of policy on this issue and human rights law.Before concluding, however, it is important to note the unintended and unforeseen consequence that the 2012 Recommendation may, and is likely to, enhance the regime to which persons convicted by international criminal courts are subject.Across Europe, numerous states have entered into bilateral enforcement agreements with international criminal courts and tribunals, whereby they undertake to consider enforcing sentences of imprisonment imposed on individuals found guilty of committing international crimes." 8At present, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Poland, Austria, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Estonia and the United Kingdom have implemented and/or are implementing international sanctions imposed by the UN Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR) and the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) within their domestic prisons. 82Albania, Slovakia and Ukraine may do so in the future for the ICTY, as might Serbia, the UK, Denmark, Belgium, Finland and Austria for the International Criminal Court (ICC). 83The reality is that there is a distinct and distinctive sub-category of foreign prisoner being housed in European prisons.
The 2012 Recommendation should directly impact upon the regime international prisoners housed in Europe experience.All of the enforcing states listed above are member states of the Council of Europe. While recommendations are not legally binding, they represent an expression of political consensus across the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, 85 and, consequently, constitute 'legal instrument[s] with legal significance'. 86They represent a common policy drafted and adopted specifically to give clear guidance to national governments on the basis of expert advice, regional jurisprudence and advocated best practice.187 Accordingly, recommendations 'send a strong political message to national authorities regarding their policy and practice'.
Over time, therefore, the rules contained in recommendations (should) become part of domestic law, policy and practice.Though international criminal courts retain a supervisory role over both their sentences and the welfare of international prisoners, domestic penal law governs the dayto-day implementation of international custodial sanctions. 8 9Having access to regional soft law guidance for dealing with foreign prisoners based on contemporary standards and best practice is particularly helpful in the context of international punishment, given that enforcing states seldom receive any advice from the convicting court in relation to the manner in which international sentences should be implemented.While some elements of the 2012 Recommendation are not applicable to the enforcement of international punishment (for example, provisions on reducing numbers), many of its rules are pertinent and useful for designing regimes and sentence plans for international prisoners.The 2012 Recommendation will be particularly helpful for enforcing states that do not have significant foreign prison populations and therefore have less experience dealing with the issues that affect them.
In addition to having a direct influence over the penal law, policies and practices of the states enforcing international sentences of imprisonment, the 2012 Recommendation may also form part of the benchmark used to assess the conditions of detention to which international prisoners are subj ect.As stated previously, the international courts remain responsible for the welfare of international prisoners.One means by which these courts oversee the treatment of international prisoners is to ask enforcing states to nominate an independent inspection body.
The ICRC oversees the implementation of international imprisonment in the majority of enforcing states (and detention at the international remand facilities of the international courts 90 ).It is important to note, however, that several European States deviated from this usual practice: the UK, Albania, Ukraine, Portugal and Germany (in the case of Gali6) opted instead to nominate the CPT.While the CPT was already able to access the prisons holding international prisoners due to the states' pre-existing obligations 9 " under the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1 92 these decisions have resulted in the CPT being responsible for overseeing the enforcement of international sentences imposed by the ICTY, the SCSL and the ICC.
The CPT draws from contemporary human rights law and its findings in the field to create its own CPT Standards.193 The CPT's Standards and their use in monitoring international punishment help to uphold standards governing the deprivation of liberty by both the European Court of Human Rights through its jurisprudence and, importantly for this discussion, the Committee of Ministers through their recommendations.Moreover, these standards, used as benchmarks for assessments during visits, are not static.Rather they evolve in line with contemporary law and practice.The content of the Standards is taken from the annual General Reports.These General Reports have begun to include references to the CPT's monitoring role on behalf of the ICTY 94 Through the CPT's use of recommendations as benchmarks and the possible inclusion of insights from the supervision of international punishment in their Standards, the 2012 Recommendation may have an influence on the enforcement of international sanctions beyond the countries that have selected the CPT as a monitor.The ICRC refers to CPT Standards when conducting inspections on behalf of international courts in both states and the remand facilities of the courts 95 based in Europe.196 While the ICRC tends to refer to UN soft law on prison conditions, 1 97 it may also refer to the 2012 Recommendation for guidance in its oversight of international punishment in non-European countries. 98if it considers that it forms part of the body of international standards governing conditions of detention and the treatment of prisoners.

Conclusion
The Committee of Ministers serves as a forum for government representatives. 99to discuss the problems facing European society and to formulate responses to them.One of the tools at its disposal is the adoption of recommendations to member states upon matters for which a common policy has been agreed.200Conscious of the growing difficulties faced by national prison administrations in relation to the management of increasingly diverse populations, the Committee of Ministers decided that it was necessary to introduce regional policy that would provide humane and tangible long-term solutions based on contemporary standards and best practice.
The 2012 Recommendation concerning foreign prisoners has made a significant contribution to regional penal policy by advocating reductionist policies, regime improvements, enhanced reintegration programmes and specialist staff.Its provisions seek to prevent and reduce the de facto discrimination and isolation faced by many foreign offenders.Adopting a human rights approach, the recommendation aims to ensure the equalisation and individualisation of the treatment of foreign offenders throughout the criminal justice and penal process.It attempts to translate these broad to in most enforcement agreements, it is likely that the 2015 revision (The Mandela Rules) will be used in practice.socio-humanitarian goals into practical guidance for the practitioners that must implement its rules.In so doing, this form of soft law has the potential to have a significant positive impact on the detention regime experienced by a sizeable and vulnerable proportion of the European prison population.Drafting a recommendation is, however, an inevitably political process and each potential rule is subject to significant discussion.A difficult balance must be struck between identified objectives, empirical and statistical evidence and the aspirations of the international legal imagination on the one hand, and the practical constraints and costs involved in managing large and diverse groups of prisoners in estates struggling with overcrowding and budget cuts on the other.The need to overcome political sensitivities and ensure the creation of feasible solutions means that the 2012 Recommendation contains gaps and has some limitations.The flipside to the fact that the recommendation is a product of political compromise is, however, a very positive one.
Each provision of the 2012 Recommendation was adopted on the basis of consensus reached following discussions by three levels of government representatives from 47 nations. 2 0 ' Every rule was therefore the product of rigorous debate and formed on the basis of input from the national authorities responsible for implementing domestic law, policy and practice.From a practitioner perspective, regional prison directors welcomed the 2012 Recommendation and affirmed their commitment to its implementation.Given this support, it seems that the recommendation can contribute towards the development of a more humane and rehabilitation orientated approach for foreign offenders throughout their detention experience.Previous recommendations have had significant impact on regional law and policy through references to them in the decisions and recommendations of the ECtHR and CPT, and on national law, due to the incorporation of such standards in domestic legislation and training programmes.°203 This recommendation also has the potential to influence international penal law, policy and practice through its impact on the regimes international prisoners are subject to and the assessment of such regimes by international inspectorates.
See ECOSOC Resolution 21 May 2015, E/CN.15/2015/L.6/Rev.1); Body of Principles for the Protection of all Persons under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, GA Res 43/173(1988); Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, GARes 45/111 (1990).198 Mali, Benin and Rwanda are currently enforcing international sentences for the ICTR and SCSL.Swaziland, Senegal, Columbia have entered into agreements with the ICTR, SCSL and ICC so may do so in the future.199 Foreign Affairs Ministers of member States or their permanent diplomatic representatives in Strasbourg.200 Article 15.b Council of Europe Statute.

Table 4 :
Michael Plachta, "Transfer of Prisoners to and From Poland: Legal Ramifications, Reality and Future Perspectives", European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Vol. 2, 1992, p. 278. 2 "Foreign Inmates on 11 t September 2013" in Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics, SPACE I Prison Populations-Survey 2013, PC-CP (2014) 11, 15 December 2014, p. 90.This represents a slight increase from 21% in 2012 -"Table 4: Foreign Inmates on 1 st September 2012", SPACE I Statistics, PC-CP 2 8The number and percentage of non-nationals in pre-trial detention has steadily risen 24 Recommendation 3 in Van Kalmthout, Hofstee-van der Meulen and Dfinkel, 28 James Banks, "Foreign National Prisoners in the UK: Explanations and Implications", p. 195.
. 64 Magali Barnoux and Jane Wood, "The Specific Needs of Foreign National Prisoners and the Threat to Their Mental Health from Being Imprisoned in a Foreign Country", p. 242.65 Rule 38.1 EPR.66 Rules 8, 39.3 CM/Rec (2012) 12; Commentary on Rule 8 CM (2012)108.67 Rules 15.1, 41.1 CM/Rec (2012) 12; Recommendation 4 UNRTFP; Rule 30.1 EPR.For further information please refer to: CPT Report on the visit to Ireland, CPT/Inf (2015) 38, paras.66, 104.68 Commentary to Rule 15 CM (2012)108.69 Magali Barnoux and Jane Wood, "The Specific Needs of Foreign National Prisoners and the Threat to Their Mental Health from Being Imprisoned in a Foreign Country", p. 242.
Kalmthout, Hofstee-van der Meulen and Dtinkel, Foreigners in European Prisons, (Vol.I), p. 1770 Van Kalmthout, Hofstee-van der Meulen and Dfinkel, Foreigners in European Prisons, (Vol.I), p. 20.REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW & POLITICS Kalmthout, Hofstee-van der Meulen and Dfinkel, Foreigners in European Prisons, (Vol.I), p. 19; Magali Barnoux and Jane Wood, "The Specific Needs of Foreign National Prisoners and the Threat to Their Mental Health from Being Imprisoned in a Foreign Country", p. 244.87 Rule 1, Recommendation No. R (84)12; Recommendation 1 UNRTFP; UNODC Volunteers working with the Dutch Probation Service's Foreign Liaison Office, and NGOs, such as British Prisoners Abroad, the Irish Commission for Prisoners Overseas Needs, p. 93; Van Kalmthout, Hofstee-van der Meulen and Dfinkel, Foreigners in European Prisons-Vol.I, p. 36; Magali Barnoux and Jane Wood, "The Specific Needs of Foreign National Prisoners and the Threat to Their Mental Health from Being Imprisoned in a Foreign Country", p. 242.92 Rules 22.7-8, CM/Rec (2012) 12. 93 Rule 33.1 CM/Rec (2012) 12; Commentary on Rule 33 CM (2012)108; Magali Barnoux and Jane Wood, "The Specific Needs of Foreign National Prisoners and the Threat to Their Mental Health from Being Imprisoned in a Foreign Country", p. 243.94 Rules 34.1-2 CM/Rec (2012) 12; Rule 36.1 EPR.95 Rules 26-28, UN Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (Resolution 2010/16).
106 CPT Report on the visit to Greece 2009, CPT/Inf (2010) 33, para.146.107VanKalmthout, Hofstee-van der Meulen and Dfinkel, Foreigners in European Prisons-Vol.I, pp. 19, 24, 39.108 Van Kalmthout, Hofstee-van der Meulen and Dfinkel, Foreigners in European consideration for income-producing work, training and education."'Toenhance the effectiveness of education and training, it also states that prison authorities should facilitate the achievement of qualifications that are recognised in the country the individual will live in following release.112 REHAB? Early Release Procedures for Prisoners without a Legal Permit of Residence in Belgium", p. 22. 131 Rule 35.2a CM!Rec (2012) 12.
Kalmthout, Hofstee-van der Meulen and Dfinkel, Foreigners in European Prisons-Vol.I, p. 72.Within the Council of Europe in 2013, EU citizens represented, on average, 37.4% of the prison population.For further information please refer to: "Table 4: Foreign Inmates on 1 s t September 2013" in Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics, SPACE I Prison Populations-Survey 2013, PC-CP (2014) 11, 15 December 2014, p. 90.Similar figures are evident within the EU.Between 2007 and 2011, EU citizens typically represent 30-40% of the prison population."Table4.2.1.6Prison population as percentage of aliens, stock: EU citizens" in European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics, it does not state at which point in the process this Agreement between the ICC and the ICRC on Visits to Persons Deprived of Liberty Pursuant to the Jurisdiction of the ICC, ICC-PRES/02-01-06, 13 April 2006.
2 201 "Summary Meeting Report of the PC-CP's Is t Plenary Meeting, 8-10 November 2011", para 13. 202 Press Release, "Equal Rights for Foreign Prisoners and Prison Overcrowding are Central Issues at a Council of Europe International Conference in Rome", DC124 (2012) Strasbourg, 15 November 2012, <https://wcd.coe.intlViewDoc.February 2016); "Conclusions of the meeting of representatives of European prison and probation services, judges, prosecutors and experts in the penitentiary field, dedicated to prison overcrowding, 24 November 2012", 17th Conference of Directors of Prison Administration with the participation of Directors of Probation Services Foreign Prisoners, Rome, 22-24 November 2012.
Zyl Smit and Sonja Snacken, Principles of European Prison Law andPolicy: Penology and Human Rights, p. 376.REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW & POLITICSVan Kalmthout, A.M., M.M. Knapen, C. Morgenstern, Pre-Trial Detention in the European Union: An Analysis of Minimum Standards in Pre-Trial Detention and the Grounds for Regular Review in the Member States of the EU, (Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, 2009).Van Zyl Smit, Dirk and Sonja Snacken, Principles of European Prison Law and Policy: Penology and Human Rights, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).R6isin Mulgrew (BCorp Law; LLB (Galway), LLM in International Criminal Justice and Armed Conflict; MA in Socio-Legal and Criminological Research; PhD (Nottingham)), has been an Assistant Professor in Law at the University of Nottingham since 2010.Her research focuses on international penal law, policy and practice.Her doctoral research exploring issues related to the enforcement of international punishment was published in 2013 by Cambridge University Press (Towards the Development of the International Penal System).In addition to publishing in the field, she has served as a scientific expert for the Council of Europe's Council for Penological Cooperation (helping to draft the 2012 Recommendation concerning foreign prisoners) and a consultant for the UN Office of Drugs and Crime (helping to produce the Handbook on the International Transfer of Sentenced Persons).She is currently a member of an Expert Steering Group on Foreign Nationals in Prison established by the European Organisation of Prison and Correctional Services (EuroPris) and the European Society for Probation (CEP).