3.7. how enhanced engagement between judiciary and npms contributes to the prevention of ill-treatment: conclusions and recommendations Conclusions Currently the link between NPMs and judiciary remains weak. So too is the NPMs knowledge of concrete EU law measures, States’ implementation and the active use of Framework Decisions on detention that seek to ameliorate the situation for detainees across the EU. The APT reflecting on potential engagement, noted that “it is important to build the bridges between judges and NPMs, so that judges are aware about the existence and reports of NPMs.”356 Indeed, both sides could benefit from increased engagement between the judiciary and NPMs. This engagement would not only be beneficial to foster the rule of law in each Member State, but at the same time also to support the implementation of the principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust on an EU level. The CJEU appropriately highlighted that NPMs can play a crucial role throughout transfer procedures. By increased engagement with the judiciary of their own country or of the executing State, NPMs should be in a position to establish themselves as an “objective, reliable, specific and properly updated” source of information, supporting judges and contributing to the uniform application of fundamental rights across the EU in the context of EAWs as required by the CJEU. Quality, publicity and accessibility of NPM reports are important prerequisites, be it in the national or in a cross-border context. They also serve to promote awareness of the NPM and its mandate as well as to establish the NPM as trustworthy and competent sources of information on conditions of detention. While there are many other relevant actors, ranging from civil society to the media, NPMs should consider, what policy they want to adopt with regard to the judiciary. There exist a number of different relevant entry points to engage with each other in a mutually beneficial manner. Many NPMs, and some despite a restricted mandate, have found ways to build relationships and manoeuvre in this framework in order to work on achieving their mandate of preventing torture and ill-treatment. Each NPM should thus reflect upon how they would like to approach specific questions of coordination or requests for information and what seems to be most appropriate in the specific context – always with the clear objective of preventing torture and ill treatment. Sharing reports with judicial actors would be a useful start to raise awareness of the activities of NPM’s and their mandate. NPMs and judges could additionally take part or create in personal forums of exchange, informally or formally, in order to be able to discuss issues of joint concern and to strengthen awareness of each other’s role. Trainings, particularly with regard to the functioning of the NPMs mandate, but also on other subjects, can also be useful to increase the NPM’s visibility as well as to explain the rationale behind the recommendations it makes and to build a more cooperative relationship with relevant actors, such as prosecutors and judges. NPMs who have former judges as members could take advantage of this expertise when contemplating, on a strategic level, how best NPMs could address the subject of engagement with the judiciary. While independence and principles of confidentiality are crucial components of the mandate of NPMs they should be used as important tools, key for the successful fulfilment of their mandate 356 Interview with Barbara Bernath, Eva Csergö, APT, 3.11.2016. 97