National Preventive Mechanism 4.3 Monitoring methodology A uniform methodology for on-site monitoring procedures must be differentiated from the assessment standards of human rights-based evaluation. One is the process of gathering information, while the other is the evaluation of the matter itself. These two components cannot be separated from one another completely, as they are intertwined. Depending on the focus of the information gathering (e.g. deployment of private security companies in psychiatric clinics or provision of food during forced returns), different steps or monitoring tools are necessary. This is why process and evaluation cannot be isolated from one another. Ultimately, the process is the means to arrive at an evaluation. Consequently and in accordance with the monitoring objectives, principles and the standards, the procedure of the commissions in how their visits are structured in order to achieve an Austria-wide comparability of the human rights-based assessments in accordance with e.g. the “Analytical self-assessment tool for National Prevention Mechanisms” (Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; Twelfth Session, 6 February 2012, CAT/OP/1) and the “Guidelines on National Preventive Mechanisms” (Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 9 December 2010, CAT/OP/12/5) - should conform to the following template: Alignment with international standards • Definition of a clear and well-demarcated monitoring priority or monitoring subject, as this is necessary both for the quality of the information gathering and in order to have the necessary space to be able to perceive any other problems that go beyond the original scope. Establishing monitoring priorities • Explanation of which (inter)national standards and statutory framework conditions exist in this regard. • Development within the NPM as to which monitoring steps must (in any case) be taken (e.g. interviews with certain persons, access to certain documentation, etc.). In the course of this process, it must also be considered how circumstances that are discovered can best be cross-checked. • The reports should show whether the agreed-upon investigative steps were undertaken or, if not, why they were not possible. 97