2.3. npm contributions to court proceedings NPMs and their work that they do are generally less well known to judges than the CPT reports or the judgments of the ECtHR, although several positive examples of courts using information produced by NPMs for their judgments exist. Different examples of the judiciary using information produced by NPMs during the course of their work would include citing reports in judgments, providing specific information on request, or NPM staff giving evidence in court. Some of these examples were subject to intense discussions, as will be outlined in more detail below. There was an example of an NPM participating in strategic litigation, which demonstrates the potential remit of the work of NPMs. NPM reports as a source of information: From expert opinions to expert evidence The question of acting as a witness or as an expert in court was one of the most contentious issues during the workshop held in the framework of the project. In order for reports to be used by other stakeholders, such as the judiciary, they need to be available to the public. While the publication and dissemination of annual reports is an obligation under Article 23 OPCAT, there is no express rule regarding visiting reports. The SPT clarified in its Assessment Tool for NPMs, that NPMs should publish “its opinions, findings and other relevant information in order to increase public awareness, especially through education and by making use of a broad range of media”286 and, specifically that, “Visit reports, including recommendations, should, in principle, be published. Exceptions may exist where the national preventive mechanism considers it inappropriate to do so or where there is a legal impediment. Annual reports must be published and should include, in addition to recommendations for change, the outcome of the dialogue with authorities, i.e., follow-up on recommendations mentioned in previous annual reports. The mechanism may also publish thematic reports.”287 Finally, the SPT elaborates, that each NPM should have a policy on publishing reports or parts of it, “including the main findings and recommendations,” as well as a policy on preparing and publishing thematic reports.288 The APT confirmed that in their view that publishing reports is key to ensure transparency and accountability.289 In an interview with the APT, it was also noted that there is nothing in the OPCAT that says that the report can or should not be published and at least the fact of the visit should be reported online.290 The revised UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Mandela Rules) in its Rule 85 stipulate that, “due consideration shall be given to making the reports of external inspections publicly available, excluding any personal data on prisoners unless they have given their explicit consent.” During the course of the NPM workshop it agreed that where possible, reports should be made available to the public.291 It follows that any reports on prisons that could be available to the public, could also form part of court proceedings, once there is no breach of confidentiality. The SPT Guidelines suggests that State should publish and widely disseminate the annual reports of the NPMs, 286 SPT Assessment Tool for NPMs, para. 9b. 287 SPT Assessment Tool for NPMs, para. 35. 288 Ibidem, para. 42c and 42d. 289 APT and IIHR, Implementation Manual (2010) 244. 290 Interview with Barbara Bernath and Eva Csergö, APT, 3.11. 2016. 291 It will be discussed in chapter 4.2.2 below which NPMs publish what kind of information, as this is a highly relevant point for cross-border proceedings. 79