“assisting in the formulation of programmes for the teaching of the prohibition and prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and carrying out research into human rights and, where appropriate, taking part in the execution of such programmes and research in schools, universities and professional circles.”278 Furthermore, the SPT, in line with Art. 10 of the Convention against Torture, considers examining the curricula of education institutions as part of the NPM work in order “to ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of detention.”279 Since this could also encompass prosecutors and judges, it is a further supports the position that NPMs should not only engage or contribute to trainings themselves but even reflect on the curricula and consider where recommendations for improvements can be made – always in the framework of the NPMs’ mandate and existing international standards. Consequently, NPMs should contemplate, whether the participation in trainings for the judiciary (and other stakeholders) could be a fruitful way to increase the impact of its work. Trainings can constitute a useful instrument not only to raise awareness about its own work, but also to build a more cooperative relationship with relevant actors. Judges as members of NPMs – an opportunity for engagement A number of NPMs also have judges or former judges that are members of the NPM itself or are members of advisory organs to the NPM.280 In the Swedish Ombuds institution, which the NPM is a part of, approximately 90% are judges that have practised in courts. When these staff members serve as judges again after their time with the Ombuds institution/NPM, knowledge will carried with them and judges can take the knowledge and experience with them. However, it seems that up to this point, the fact that the NPM itself or advisory structures include (former) members of the judiciary does not translate to outreach with the judiciary by NPMs in the EU. An example of how judges who are part of the NPM advisory structure could support the NPM’s work, from beyond the EU is Brazil, where Judges were members of the National Committee to Prevent and Combat Torture, which closely works with the Brazilian NPM and specifically helped to establish a dialogue between the NPM and judicial authorities in the country.281 This also gave rise to the Association of Brazilian Magistrates to participate and cooperate directly with the NPM in one of the states. Regarding his own involvement and how it benefitted his work as a judge, one of the judges commented that “being a member of the national committee has undoubtedly had a positive impact on my work as a judge. I was able to listen to claims, grievances and suggestions from civil society on improving the public policy on combating torture in the country, including with regard to magistrates.”282 278 SPT, Assessment Tool for NPMs, para. 9f. 279 SPT Self Assessment Tool, para. 9g. 280 Austria, France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and Portugal. 281 APT, Putting prevention into practice- 10 years on: the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture, Chapteron Brazilian NPM. 282 Ibidem. 76