chapter 2. methods and modes of engagement to contribute to the prevention of ill-treatment on a national level In order to consider the method and modes of engagement that can strengthen the prevention of ill-treatment, a series of questions will be considered. In particular - what practices of coordination between NPMs and the judiciary exist already? How could greater awareness of each other’s role and mandate be used to contribute to the prevention of ill-treatment? And how could concrete opportunities to enhance engagement look like? 2.1. issuing recommendations to the judiciary The SPT, in its Assessment Tool notes that in addition to conducting visits the NPM should also make “recommendations to the relevant authorities, with the aim of improving the treatment and conditions of persons deprived of their liberty and preventing torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of those persons, and engaging in a meaningful process of dialogue with the State party responsible and any other relevant stakeholders concerning the implementation of any recommendations made”262 Whether NPMs can and should address recommendations to the judiciary was one of the most contentious issues during discussions in the framework of the project. The views and practices of NPMs greatly varied, depending also on their very specific national legal framework. A particular criterion regarding the question of how NPMs approach the issuing recommendations also seems to be connected to their institutional set-up and is related to whether or not they are part of an Ombuds institution. Recommendations to the judiciary as an infringement to judicial independence? Some NPMs have stated that they cannot give recommendations to the judiciary because it goes beyond the confines of by their mandate, or the perception that giving recommendations to the judiciary constitutes an infringement of judicial independence.263 Those that felt that they could not give recommendations directly, often used other methods such as sending their reports, or considered that a more fruitful method to raise issues would be through informal roundtables or informal discussions. Recommendations to the judiciary as part of the NPM mandate At the same time many NPMs in the EU already give recommendations to the judiciary and are of the opinion that this does not undermine judicial independence. The French NPM emphasised that recommendations are made to all relevant actors, and so also towards judges, which they believe to 262 SPT Assessment Tool for NPMs, para. 9a. 263 For example, the Lithuanian or Hungarian NPM. In the case of The Hungarian NPM visited psychiatric holding cells in a hospital, where the right to judicial review had not been granted to someone. They could not issue a recommendation, but sent a report about it to the top organ of the court. There was no answer given, as in contrast to issuing a formal recommendation, there is no obligation to provide for an answer. The NPM elaborated, “There is simply an interdiction for the NPM to target judges through recommendations. We can have exchanges, sometimes we do. So we can conside sharing the reports with judges this way, informally, directly.” 70