and NPMs and raising awareness of the benefits of interactions.363 More specifically it could address the role, if any, of NPMs in providing reports for court proceedings and how to formulate recommendations directed to the judiciary.364 Arising from the workshops conducted with NPMs, and as part of recommendations directed at the SPT and formulated during the workshops, NPMs suggested that the SPT invite judges to consider and look to the reports of NPMs, and establish guidelines for the formal dialogue with relevant stakeholders, considered above, and finally that after visits the SPT could take steps to promote that NPMs attend briefing visits with authorities. In the view of the authors, the SPT should consider how to provide orientation to NPMs on making their reports more available and useful to other actors, notably the judiciary. This could be achieved by providing general guidance on reporting and dissemination as more specifically guidance on engagement with the judiciary in full respect of the mutual independence. Moreover, the SPT could consider how to strengthen its engagement with the judiciary as an important actor in the prevention of torture and ill-treatment. In this regard it could specifically take up the issue of judicial cooperation in cross-border proceedings outlined in part one of the Study. 4.2. the european committee for the prevention of torture (cpt) CPT findings as an important reference The CPT, established under the Council of Europe’s “European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment“ consists of a multidisciplinary team with a mandate to carry out periodic and adhoc visits of places of detention across the 47 members of the Council of Europe. The CPT member Anton Van Kalmthout referred to the NPMs as ‘natural partners’ of the CPT, and considered that the main task to work on was how to ensure that NPMs gain similar credibility going forward. Many of the NPMs indicated that they referred to and incorporated in their reports the findings of the CPT.365 Furthermore, during the course of surveys conducted with judges in the context of this Study, over 45% of those surveyed stated that they had used CPT reports in the context of EAW deliberations. Clearly with regard to the use of CPT reports in the context of Article 3 ECHR, as well as the consideration of mutual recognition instruments, both judges and NPMs place significant weight on the findings of the CPT. Indeed, in the Aranyosi and Căldăraru decision, in addition to national monitoring mechanisms, the CJEU referred to ’reports and other documents produced by bodies of the Council of Europe’. 366 The same paragraph also notes that judges considering the question of a surrender, should be relying upon information that is objective, reliable, specific and properly updated on the detention conditions.’367 This raises the issue that many judges felt that CPT reports required supplementing. With a mandate covering 47 countries, it follows that aside from the ad hoc visits, CPT visits, conducted approximately every four years, could not be as up to date and reflect the latest developments. Strengthening the cooperation with NPMs and the judiciary during country visits NPMs reflected on how improved cooperation with the international community could strengthen the impact of their mandate. To this end, and as part of an outcome document created during the 363 Interview conducted with Portuguese NPM 364 France. 365 Sweden, Croatian, Luxembourg, Slovenia 366 Joined Cases C‑404/15, Aranyosi and C‑659/15 PPU, Caldӑrӑru [2016] at paragraph 89 367 Ibidem at para 89. 102