Context

According to the Council of Europe (SPACE I; Aebi & Tiago, 2018), there are currently 1,229,385 inmates incarcerated in the penal institutions that comprise the organisation's Member States, from which 22,4% are being held captive not serving a final sentence yet. Curiously, even though incarceration rates continue to trend down since 2012, the percentage of pre-trial detainees increased 5,0% in comparison to 2016 (Aebi & Tiago, 2018). Within European Union (EU), cases such as Italy (34,5%), Greece (32,4%) and Sweden (27,4%) are a few examples of countries that are above the European average (26%) of detainees not serving a final sentence. The issue of pre-trial detention (PTD) should not be overlooked since its excessive use negatively impacts not only detainees and their fundamental rights, but also their families, communities, and even countries' financial resources (Open Society Justice Initiative [OSJI], 2011). In addition, it is impossible to neglect the organisational impact on prison systems since "an important cause of overcrowding is often the increasing use of PTD (Deltenre & Maes, 2004).
 
Therefore, the negative impacts of PTD could be understood as threefold:

1. National (e.g., financial cost related to each EU Member State [EUMS]);
2. Organisational (e.g., lack of human/financial resources; overcrowding);
3. Individual (e.g., psychological, social and financial burden).

 
 
By promoting judicial cooperation between EUMSs and raising policymakers and stakeholders' awareness on the topic, PRE-TRIAD aims to build the groundwork for the realisation of common standards with respect to fundamental rights on the practical application of PTD (and its alternative measures), while fostering the application of the Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 by EU Member States.

Objectives

To achieve its central goal, PRE-TRIAD's specific objectives are:

1. To provide a detailed account of the national and European legislation on PTD, its impacts (national, organisation, and individual levels), as well as alternative successful practices to PTD;
   
   
2. To understand:
   i.  The underlying causes/reasons for judges/magistrates not applying/be sceptical to apply PTD alternative measures;
   ii.  If a political and legal national framework focused on PTD as a preventive measure tends to result in higher numbers of pre-trial detainees (i.e., building upon the findings of the DETOUR project);
   iii.  If a legislative harmonisation on PTD is the ideal way to reduce PTD numbers.
   ​
3. To raise awareness among policymakers, judicial practitioners and training academies, researchers/academics, and other stakeholders on the application of the Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009, while fostering judicial training on the topic.