3.3. the challenge in using npm reports in cross-border proceedings In order for judges to be able to inform themselves, and others of the conditions and the existing monitoring mechanisms as elaborated upon by the CJEU in Aranyosi and Caldӑrӑru, judicial authorities must from the outset, be aware of NPMs’ existence. Furthermore, in order to effectively use NPM reports as a basis to take decisions on transfer cases, the reports must be of good quality, they must be accessible and in the public domain Quality of reports Whether judges are willing to rely on the information contained in NPM reports, depends on trust and confidence in NPMs’ work and the information they collect. Building that trust and establishing NPMs as a reliable source does not only depend on creating more solid awareness regarding the mandate of NPMs, but equally also on the quality of the reports. At the workshop for NPMs conducted in the framework of this project, participants commented that NPM reports across the EU vary significantly, and the option of standardising reports was considered. The SPT during the workshops confirmed that standardisation in principle would be useful, but that one template for all across the EU would not be realistic. The APT suggested that if standards would be elaborated, then the bare minimum should be defined because the length and type of visits both within countries, and as between them, can vary significantly.317 NPMs mostly however felt that good practice examples of reports would be useful.318 Obviously, standardisation of reports is far from being the only key aspect regarding good quality reports; rather the NPM’s work needs to be substantial and reliable in the first place. One Ministry of Justice representative underlined that it would be good if there was greater complementarity instead of competition between the reports of the different monitoring mechanisms, referring particularly to the CPT and NPMs. 319 Publicity of reports In keeping with the OPCAT, annual reports by NPMs are required to be made public and according to the SPT, visit report, including recommendations, should in principle be published as well. Almost all NPMs in the EU publish annual reports.320 This means, that judicial authorities who would like to get a general overview about detention conditions in one country, should mostly be able to access this information across the EU. The situation is different with visiting reports, whereby most NPMs in the EU publish them (see Figure 1 below), but not all NPMs do. During the course of the final conference, the former Special Rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak noted that it would be important for NPMs to be fully transparent, and publish visiting reports. As will be outlined in the subsequent section on accessibility, many NPMs that publish visit reports, do not do so in English. Many NPMs also publish information about places of detention in their annual report – this is however not as detailed as it would be in the visit report. Furthermore, it might prove burdensome for judges to go through NPMs’ annual reports in order to gather information about specific places of detention. The chart set out below helps to provide an overview of the availability of reports in the public domain. 317 Interview with APT representatives, 3.11.2016. 318 Also see Chapter 6.1, Role of the SPT below. 319 Interview with Barbara Göth-Flemmich and Andrea Rohner, Austrian MoJ, 28.10.2016. 320 The Maltese NPM does not publish its annual reports. The Luxembourgish NPM has stopped producing annual reports, but publishes its visit reports. 88