persons with disabilities), the NPM must, in contrast, pre-select facilities that are to be monitored and controlled for the first time and – due to capacity reasons – weigh the necessity of follow-up visits in a facility. The main responsibility of the NPM is less to examine isolated cases of concern, but rather to detect structural aspects that can lead to such cases. The NPM is flexible enough and also has enough resources to react quickly to extraordinary circumstances outside of the planned visits. Most of the visits in 2015, namely six, were solely to the Traiskirchen Initial Reception Centre, which was necessary due to unacceptable human rights conditions on the ground - such as mass homelessness and inadequate care of almost 1,500 persons during the summer. Control density varies Initiation or management of change processes in organisations is only successful where a shared insight into the objectives focused on by the NPM can be created. It arises from the mandate and the overall character of the OPCAT that the activity of the NPM must be carried out with a monitoring perspective that is centred on human rights and must result in reports and recommendations. This requires the systematic study of the social realities encountered, their assessment in light of international and national human rights standards, demanding suitable measures to achieve these standards and their initial establishment if they do not yet exist on the national level. The NPM must address the changes it believes to be necessary in depth in order to fully maximise the proactive potential of the preventive mandate. NPM activities result in reports and recommendations In addition, the importance of visits, of constructive dialogue with the management of the facilities and institutions and with the entities that own or operate them, as well as with ministries, supervisory authorities, and the legislature, should not be underestimated. In order to effectively prevent human rights violations and to demand changes – which are clearly necessary – it is mandatory to process and discuss the results of commission visits with all those responsible, with cooperation partners, and also with legislative bodies. The authorities and administrative departments that fall into the NPM’s area of responsibility are obligated under Article 22 of the OPCAT to enter into a dialogue with the NPM regarding possible implementation measures, and they in fact do so. Permanent working groups on subjects regarding the NPM have once again been established in cooperation with the Federal Ministry of the Interior in 2015; discussions with other bodies are conducted as required. Increased dialogue is necessary Behind the system of preventive visits is the conviction that there is an increased danger of abuse when people deprived of their liberty are subject to an especially high degree of government authority or the authority of private actors that is tolerated by the state and, are, at the same time, hidden from the attention of a public that engages in advocacy. Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or Guarantee, protection and respect for human rights 6