Type, capacity and nature of complaints mechanisms 70. It is crucially important that, in each place of deprivation of liberty, there is an effective internal complaints mechanism. This can help not only to identify and resolve problems as soon as they arise but can also assist the management and frontline staff to prevent abuses. Such a mechanism should be immediately accessible. Complaints may initially be made orally, and recorded by a member of staff on duty to whom the complaint is made, unless the complaint is about that member of staff (in which case it should be made confidentially to the senior member of staff on duty or the next available supervisor). Such a complaint should be responded to quickly, i.e. within a narrowly defined time span. If not resolved, the complaint should be formulated in writing by the complainant and taken to the next hierarchical level of staff who should also respond in writing. All decisions should indicate the subsequent steps to be taken if the complainant is not satisfied. More sensitive and/or serious complaints should be submitted, by a separate internal procedure, directly to the person in charge of the establishment. It is also important for managers to enter into direct contact with persons deprived of their liberty on a regular basis in order to provide them with opportunities to complain to them freely and confidentially. In the CPT’s view, it is also advisable that external complaints bodies maintain oversight on internal complaints mechanisms. 71. Naturally, complainants should be able to turn to external complaints bodies directly. There is a variety of models in Council of Europe member states, ranging from general complaints bodies (e.g. national ombudsman institutions, administrative courts) to specialised agencies (e.g. independent police complaints bodies, prosecutors or judges specialised in penitentiary matters, prisons ombudsman institutions, special complaints boards or commissions).4 Their powers may also vary considerably and their decisions may or may not be binding. In the context of its visits, the CPT has often found that complaints bodies which were not empowered to make binding decisions faced problems in having their recommendations or opinions followed up by the relevant authorities. 72. It should also be stressed that the capacity of complaints bodies to carry out their task depends largely on the allocation of adequate resources to their functioning, including human resources. Staff working for these bodies should receive appropriate training and be sufficient in number. Where necessary, they should be able to call on consultants or independent specialised support staff. 73. In the CPT’s experience, it is inadvisable for national preventive mechanisms or other similar monitoring bodies also to deal directly with formal complaints. Where the same institution is designated to handle complaints and to monitor places of deprivation of liberty, both functions should preferably be kept separate and performed by clearly distinct entities, each with its own staff. 74. Complaints bodies should also be conceived as offering supplementary protection. They should not be considered as a substitute for criminal and other legal remedies that should be available to persons deprived of their liberty. 4. An overview of prison complaints mechanisms is provided by Dirk Van Zyl Smit and Sonia Snacken, Principles of European Prison Law and Policy. Penology and Human Rights, New York: Oxford University Press 2008, pp. 308-310. General Report of the CPT, 2017 ► Page 26