In light of this approach, several NPMs stated, that if it were to serve the rights of the detainee as well as their mandate to prevent ill-treatment, while at the same time preserving the principle of confidentiality, they would be open to sharing information. The Croatian NPM for example shared its unpublished visiting reports on a specific prison with different courts, as well as the representative of Croatia at the ECtHR asked the Croatian NPM on request. The information provided did not include any personal data. A quarter of NPMs have been consulted by judges to provide information Approximately a quarter of all NPMs in the EU, including the NPMs of Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Poland, Romania, Slovenia have indicated, that they had been consulted by a judge who sought information regarding detention conditions in a specific place of detention in which they were monitoring.295 While some address requests on a case-by-case approach296, the Polish NPM has internal guidelines what do and the approach is also published in its annual report. If the NPM decides to give information it first removes any personal information, like names or other sensitive information. Another example of providing information to the judiciary per request would be to conduct visits specifically on foot of a request of the judiciary. There does not seem to be one example of this within the EU, and in light of the NPMs’ independence it would be expected, that NPMs would mostly find this problematic and not fulfil such a request. An example of this however may be taken from an experience from a non-EU NPM, the Costa Rican NPM, which had received a request by the Constitutional Centre to conduct a visit to a certain place of detention.297 The NPM at the time decided that the visit would serve its own strategic interests and therefore undertook it. In contrast to this experience, the Polish NPM stated, that it would not undertake a prison visit on foot of a request in order to preserve its own independence. One can conclude that while NPMs can never be compelled to provide information, as it would infringe on their independence, NPMs should take decisions on whether to provide information on request always with the objective to prevent ill-treatment. It might be useful if the NPM sets up specific guidelines about how to deal with such requests. 295 The Romanian NPM was requested by the High Court of Cassation to inform the judge whether inquiries with regard to a specific police station where the concerned person was being detained, had been conducted and what these revealed. The Romanian NPM was also contacted by prosecutors who sought information regarding centres for children. The Estonian Chancellor of Justice is sometimes requested by judges about findings from inspection visits in order to resolve court cases. 296 Interview with Spanish NPM, 13 September 2016. 297 Interview with APT 3 November 2016. 81