Concerns of interference with judicial independence Furthermore, there appears to be reluctance amongst some NPMs to liaise closely with the judiciary as it might be perceived to be an interference with judicial independence. In general, National Human Rights Institutions (NHRI) are limited in their mandate when it comes to courts and the judiciary due to the principle of independence258 but this does not preclude them from making recommendations and contributing to the application of EU law by offering information to the judiciary, as will be discussed in more detail below. Furthermore, NHRIs and NPMs have the mandate to report and refer their investigations’ outcome to institutions such as the judiciary, the prosecuting authorities or the government.259 Judicial independence therefore should not constitute an obstacle to a closer NPM-judiciary relationship, and existing practices of coordination discussed throughout this chapter supports this position. This view is also shared by the French NPM who noted that ��Article 1 of the law regulating our mandate says that we are not competent where judges are, meaning we should not interfere and overlap. But we can exchange. We realise over the years, and especially since several judges like me are at the CGLPL that it is fine to exchange, it is not seen as interference. We have contacts. But there is still some reluctance, some fears, due to the independence of the magistrates. There is also some self-censorship, as the whole issue is still unclear to many colleagues.”260 Notwithstanding these concerns, there has been recognition also of the benefits exchange, and a notable shift towards engagement. 261 Almost all NPMs and the great majority of surveyed judges wish for an increased cooperation Despite the limited existing relationships, there is appetite for the improvement and strengthening of the relationship between the judiciary and NPMs. The survey conducted in the framework of this project showed that 21 out of 22 NPMs wish for an increase of cooperation with the judiciary. 82% of the judges surveyed likewise stated that they wish for stronger cooperation, with several highlighting its potential benefits in the context of the EAW. The ones expressing doubts about cooperation justified it by the fact they need more information regarding the mandate of NPMs. Need for guidance and procedures for cooperation While most NPMs also favoured increased engagement with the judiciary, several NPMs requested guidance in this regard. Specific requests throughout the Study focused on shaping the process of engagement by which the judiciary can be approached, as well as how to share practices with other countries. At the NPM workshop, one additional challenge for NPMs was raised, namely how to identify which judge to contact. While there are judges’ associations, outreach sometimes was found to be challenging, as it would be necessary to engage broadly and strategically, with a number of different individual judges. 258 OHCHR, National Human Rights Institutions (2010) available at www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/PTS-4Rev1NHRI_en.pdf p.33. 259 Ibidem, p.91. 260 Interview with French NPM. Article 1 reads as follows: “The Contrôleur general of places of deprivation of liberty, an independent authority, is hereby in made responsible subject to the prerogatives granted by law to judicial or quasi-judicial bodies for monitoring the conditions of management and transfer of persons in custody, so as to ensure that their fundamental rights are respected.” 261 The Luxembourgish NPM confirmed that at the beginning, there existed significant tensions between the NPM and the judiciary, and judges would usually react to any critical points brought up by the NPM through pointing to their independence. This however has changed, and there has been a shift towards greater understanding of each other’s work and mandate. 69