MONITORING PLACES OF DETENTION : A PRACTICAL GUIDE 38 29, paragraph 1, of the United Nations Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. Most States have established their own internal inspection mechanisms, which are sometimes supplemented by judicial control. However, they have been slower to develop external independent monitoring mechanisms. 1.1 Internal inspections Most States have set up internal administrative inspections by a government institution in charge of carrying out visits to places of deprivation of liberty, as part of the normal running of big bureaucracies. The role of such an administrative body is usually limited to controlling the compliance of staff and procedures with national standards, and administrative guidelines and regulations. It rarely includes a broader approach involving issues such as the dignity and human rights of the persons deprived of their liberty. It is thus possible for internal inspection procedures to carry out their mandate fully and for conditions of detentionto remain incompatible with international human rights standards. This is one reason why internal monitoring is not sufficient in itself and must be complemented by external independent monitoring. 1.2 Judicial inspections As part of their mandate, judges and public prosecutors are often responsible for carrying out regular visits to places of detention and inspecting the conditions of detention. In some countries, a “supervisory judge” may visit prisons for sentenced criminals and decide on matters related to the execution of the sentence. Judicial inspections vary in frequency and quality. They can be effective when the judge can issue binding decisions about prison conditions.