upon Member States to avail themselves of their findings.251 The Court, however, did not provide much guidance on its modalities. The European Commission has also underlined, that NPMs, through improving the situation of detention ‘at home’, i.e. in their national contexts, can contribute to enhanced mutual trust between EU Member States which again is a prerequisite for a functioning judicial cooperation.252 In a previous project implemented by the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights on follow-up to NPM recommendations, there were many questions and at times uncertainty amongst NPMs as to how to deal (or not to as the case may be) with the judiciary in their every-day work. Judges obviously not only have a crucial responsibility in the application of EU law related to detention to which NPMs can contribute, as will be outlined in the following Chapters, but also play an important role regarding the situation of detention in their own country. The relationship between these two actors domestically as well as how engagement could contribute to the improvement of detention conditions will be examined in the forthcoming chapters. This will be considered on the basis that an improvement ‘at home’ also contributes to a smoother functioning of judicial cooperation in criminal cross-border matters. The effects on cross-border cooperation will be also be considered. 1.3. npms and the judiciary – the benefits of engagement Preventing torture and ill-treatment while an individual is deprived of liberty is the core mandate of NPMs. Judges are the guardians of the law and thus of the State’s human rights obligations vis-à-vis its citizens. Since all EU Member States are parties to the ECHR, judges are the ones who give life to Art. 3, as they are ultimately the ones to translate these legal obligations of the State into everyday practice. As referenced above, judges are often tasked with ultimate decisions over individuals’ lives. The prevention of torture and ill-treatment is thus a joint interest of both, NPMs and judges. As will be discussed further below, following the CJEU’s Aranyosi and Caldӑrӑru judgment of April 2016, judges might increasingly consider the conditions of detention in other EU Member States. Due to the fact that information regarding detention conditions will be necessary in order to take an informed decision on whether issuing States comply with Art. 3 ECHR obligations, as well as the reference to national monitoring mechanisms in the CJEU judgement, a greater interest from judges regarding NPMs is to be expected. Prevention of torture and ill-treatment as a collaborative effort Prevention of torture and ill-treatment are a collaborative effort in which the various actors hold different roles. NPMs as independent bodies have a very concrete mandate to visit places of detention and give recommendations to State authorities with a view to preventing torture and ill-treatment. The State either implements these recommendations or provides reasons for a refusal to do so. Judges, also as independent actors within the judicial system of the State, interpret and apply laws in practice. They have the power to issue binding judgements. Consequently, if national or international judges cite NPM reports in their judgments, the NPM non-binding findings and recommendations form part of binding judgments. This can significantly contribute to the implementation of recommendations and ultimately fulfil the NPM’s objective to prevent torture and ill-treatment. In this regard, the Slovenian NPM noted that it had issued reports for a number of years on one specific place of detention. Little action was taken on foot of these observations by the authorities until the ECtHR referenced the specific NPM reports. Thereafter the authorities swiftly implemented 251 Joined Cases C‑404/15, Aranyosi and C‑659/15 PPU, Caldӑrӑru [2016] paras. 89 et seq. 252 Interview with Jesca Beneder, EU Commission, 28.10.2016. 66