ICRC, the Association for the Prevention of Torture, Penal Reform International, Amnesty International, the Mental Disability Advocacy Centre and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In May 2009, the OSCE Mission to Montenegro, along with ODIHR and national institutions, organized a regional conference on OPCAT implementation in SouthEastern Europe. This conference complemented the Prague event. The conference provided a useful platform for communication, as many practitioners who work on similar topics in their home countries met for the first time. The Ombudsman Office in Montenegro declared its intention to take up the recommendations generated at the gathering, especially vis-à-vis the required independence of the NPM and the obligation to visit all places of detention regardless of which ministry exercises supervision. Both meetings focused on the process in several countries of establishing NPMs, the effectiveness and appropriateness of the bodies chosen, and the implementation of the mandate to prevent torture under the Protocol. The meetings aimed to provoke open discussion of the Protocol as an effective tool for torture prevention by considering the practical issues regarding implementation and, in particular, those surrounding the creation or designation of NPMs. The Optional Protocol is being implemented simultaneously in different political contexts, and this event provided a unique opportunity for comparison and the sharing of experience between different countries in the OSCE region. 4.4 Implementation of OPCAT in the OSCE area: national perspectives This section will outline the main themes that emerged from the meetings mentioned above and provide some examples from individual countries. 28 Comments have not been attributed to any specific individuals unless their prior consent has been obtained. 29 4.4.1 Ombudsman offices and NGOs as NPMs A majority of the countries participating in the meetings had designated Ombudsman offices as part of the NPM. In some countries this selection was made with the initial involvement of NGOs, whereas in others the selection was made by the Parliament or Government without such consultation. In the latter cases NGOs had not generally been included in the NPM. It appears, however, that sustained lobbying by civil society led many countries to move towards the inclusion of NGOs either in the process of selecting an NPM or in the NPM itself. In a number of cases Ombudsman institutions themselves had initiated the contact with and involvement of NGOs in the NPM, even where 28 A comprehensive report of the meeting, “OPACT in the OSCE region: What it means and how to make it work”, is available on the University of Bristol website at <http://www.bris.ac.uk/law/research/centresthemes/opcat/opcatdocs/prague2008/proceedingspraguenovember2008.pdf>/ 29 The meeting was held under the Chatham House Rule. 36