Principles, but was designated as an NPM under the Protocol. 31 One point made was that Paris Principles criteria were not a perfect match for those of OPCAT, as the former are broader in scope and designed for a less specialized purpose, so this was not necessarily an issue in evaluating an NPM. More generally, the point was also made that the process of the creation and ongoing operation of an NPM should be seen as an evolving one. A recurring theme at the meeting was that the NPM is an evolving institution and it was obvious that certain approaches were already being adjusted. The recognition of the need to include NGOs in the NPM process was one example. It was also acknowledged that a period during which NPMs will gain the necessary experience should be expected on their way to becoming effective visiting bodies. It was generally recognized that the existence of a long-term field presence by international organizations, such as the ICRC or OSCE, was an important factor with regard to support for the establishment and effective ongoing operation of NPMs. Representatives from a number of countries, including Armenia, Moldova, Ukraine and Azerbaijan, emphasized the value of support from OSCE field operations in this regard. 4.4.2 The Estonian NPM Experience A comprehensive and practical overview of the work of a newly designated NPM was provided by a representative of the office of the Estonian Chancellor of Justice in the context of a discussion of how NPMs can carry out the preventive aspect of their mandate. As the institution designated under the Protocol, the office of Chancellor of Justice has had a mandate to inspect places of deprivation of liberty in Estonia for several years, although it only began visiting as an NPM in 2008. The representative of the Chancellor’s office stressed that carrying out visits, per se, will not ensure the effective prevention of torture. Prevention should also address possible future breaches, thereby minimizing the risk that shortcomings in the system will lead to torture or ill-treatment. The Chancellor’s office enumerated a number of factors assisting in prevention, including transparency of visits, raising public awareness, publishing reports, the follow up of recommendations, and identifying gaps in law and practice and introducing changes to legislation. The representative from the office of the Estonian Chancellor of Justice attempted to define the concept of an effective visit, stressing that preparatory work, such as identifying questions to be asked and having knowledge of the institution, was essential. It was important to visit both individuals who had specifically requested an interview and those who had not. Discussions with lower level officials were as important as meetings with detention centre managers, and should be carried out with the managers not present, preferably in an informal setting. The representative noted that obtaining information in military detention centres could be particularly challenging. The Chancellor’s office sought further input from the UN Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture regarding NPM activity and visits – particularly what is 31 A report on this issue by the OPCAT Project at Bristol University can be found on the University of Bristol website, <http://bristol.ac.uk/law/research/centres-themes/opcat/>. 38