nursing homes have failed to comply with these obligations. According to Article 22 of the OPCAT, the ministries are required to examine the recommendations of the National Agency and enter into a dialogue with it on possible implementation measures. For the National Agency to be effective in its task of preventing inhumane treatment, it is essential that the highest supervisory authorities give independent consideration to the recommendations it makes. For example, the ministries are obliged to grant the National Agency access to all places of detention and their installations and facilities (cf. Article 20 (c) OPCAT). This obligation also requires that the ministries inform the facilities concerned about the National Agency and its powers, and make them aware of the fact that visits may occur at any time and without prior notification. In compliance with this legal obligation, the respective ministries usually issue clear statements on each individual recommendation made by the National Agency. However, the Saarland Ministry for Social Affairs, Health, Women and Families merely informed the National Agency that all aspects addressed in the report had been clarified or settled, and that for staffing and organisational reasons it would not be issuing a detailed statement. On occasion, the competent ministries referred the National Agency to the residential home authority as a point of contact, even though only the highest supervisory authorities in the country can ensure that the recommendations of the National Agency are implemented. In Baden-Württemberg, however, this was not always the case. When it was announced to one residential care and nursing home that a visit would take place the following day, the facility stated to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Integration of Baden-Württemberg that it would not grant admission. The facility had not received any information concerning the National Agency up until that point. The responsible Ministry of Social Affairs and Integration of Baden-Württemberg found that it was unable to arrange for the National Agency to access the facility at the planned time. Consequently, the facility was visited at a later date. During a follow-up visit to a facility in BadenWürttemberg, it was also noted with concern that some of the recommendations made had not been implemented, contrary to assurances from the ministry in its statement on the report on the first visit. Furthermore, the ministries are obliged to grant the National Agency access to all information referring to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in places of detention as well as their conditions of detention (cf. Article 20 (b) OPCAT). 1.3 – JUDICIAL DECISIONS In order to make as little extra work as possible for the facilities on the day of the visit, the National Agency allows them to submit certain information relevant to the visit after the date. Two of the facilities visited failed to comply with this subsequent obligation and did not send the National Agency the requested information. The ministries responsible for these facilities were the Ministry for Social Affairs and Integration of Baden-Württemberg, and the Brandenburg Ministry for Labour and Social Affairs, Health, Women and Families. These ministries, as the highest supervisory authorities, did not consider themselves in a position to take measures enabling the National Agency to fulfil its statutory mandate – despite their legal obligation to do so. During each visit, the National Agency consulted the judicial decisions at hand concerning measures involving deprivation of liberty. This revealed considerable differences in the legal assessment of individual measures involving deprivation of liberty. Furthermore, the reasons for certain decisions were not always clear, while in isolated cases there were considerable doubts as to the lawfulness of judicial decisions. The National Agency found that the application of identical measures was assessed at times as a deprivation of liberty and at other times as a mere protective measure. Such discrepancies were observed even in cases involving judges of the same court, and even in the same circumstances. This was noted, for 35