chapter 4. the role of international bodies The UN Subcommittee on the Prevention of torture has indicated that NPMs should consider forming partnerships with national and international actors in order to raise awareness of the obligations of States so as to facilitate change.357 In addition to strengthening the engagement between NPMs and Judges inter se, both actors could look to international bodies for the role that they play in the context of mutual recognition and the fundamental rights compliant implementation. 4.1. the subcommittee on prevention of torture (spt) The UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) was established pursuant to the OPCAT. In addition to its preventive functions, Article 11 of the OPCAT provides that the SPT shall advise on the establishment of NPMs, and to provide ongoing technical assistance in order to strengthen the capacities of NPMs. In this regard the SPT has prepared guidelines on NPMs.358 In January 2016, the SPT published an analytical assessment tool for NPMs, paragraph 5 of which notes that “upon request from a State party and/or a national preventive mechanisms the Subcommittee will offer further advice and assistance to the mechanism in the evaluation of tis needs and the means necessary to strengthen the protection of person deprived of their liberty against torture and ill-treatment.”359 In particular the analytical tool specifically refers to instances when the NPM should establish a strategy for cooperation with international actors including the SPT in the follow up of cases of suspected, or documented cases of torture, and particular in relation to the issue of reprisals.360 Developing guidelines on engagement During the course of workshops with NPMs in Vienna, the question of the SPT providing guidelines to ensure high quality NPM reports was raised. After the workshops, and as part of targeted interviews, NPMs were asked whether they felt that SPT guidelines on reporting could be beneficial for them. This was met with mixed response. The SPT felt that at this stage it was not necessary, while the APT raised the practical concern that reports vary between one day visiting reports and two week visiting reports, and that while minimum reporting guidelines could be elaborated upon, it would be difficult to see how guidelines could be applied in the case of reports generally. Several NPMs found that it could be useful to have a basic structure to tailor reports,361 guidelines or best practice models on reporting. Some NPMs were of the view that exchange with other NPMs on practices would be of greater benefit. The vast majority of NPMs362 stated that it would be useful to have SPT guidelines on the relationship between judiciary and NPMs. A document such as that could address the possible engagement without interfering with the independence of the judiciary 357 SPT, Analytical assessment tool for National Preventive Mechanisms, para. 9c, 25.1.2016. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/OPCAT/CAT-OP-1-Rev-1_en.pdf (3 November 2016 para 17 Available: 358 Guidelines on national preventive mechanisms (CAT/OP/12/5) 15th -19th November 2010. 359 SPT, Analytical assessment tool for National Preventive Mechanisms, para. 9c, 25.1.2016. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/OPCAT/CAT-OP-1-Rev-1_en.pdf (3 November 2016). 360 Ibidem para 43. 361 Interview conducted with Slovenian NPM (31.8.2016) and Portuguese NPM (7.9.2016), Interview conducted with SpanishNPM (14.9.2016) 362 With the exception of two NPMs. Available: 101