The first day was dedicated to answering the question: «what to do with the visits conclusions?». The seminar discussed the methods used by the NPM but also in other institutions, and the follow-up strategies. Most participants underlined the great ease in formulating recommendations, by contrast to its follow-up. Preliminary discussion took place about whether the NPM should propose solutions or just recommend the resolution of problems encountered. The consensus reached pointed to the first option. It was welcomed the classification of places of detention on the basis of risk, with corresponding concentration of visits in those with higher risk. It was also suggested the existence of instruments of easy research about the recommendations that had been made, the ones that had been implemented and the reasons of non-compliance. It was found that it would be useful to create a set of assessment criteria, as a result of the practice of the CPT and SPT, as well as each NPM own activity. The different national experiences described have shown that it would be helpful to provide evaluation criteria to the places of detention boards, as well as ask them, in case of compliance, an indication of the timing of the implementation. Conclusion was also reached about the need for a communication strategy and coordination with entities not related to the visit, including the media and the non-governmental Organizations. To facilitate the knowledge and awareness of Parliament the inclusion of MPs in the visiting teams was considered. It was also discussed the possibility of involvement of judges in the operation of the NPM, for example on thematic meetings. Finally, the question was posed, for timely consideration and response (in particular at the Spring Meeting), on the role that the European Union could play in this field. The second part of the work focused on the relationships of the national prevention mechanisms with the SPT and the CPT. With regard to the SPT, the President pointed out that the orientation of that Committee is focused on strengthening and cooperation with NPM and revealed great interest of SPT in general issues, regarding the operation of the NPM, as to guarantee appropriate budget and an adequate structure. Mention was made to visits to be performed by the SPT, which can be of a general nature or aim support for NPM. In the first case, it is usual to make a large set, issuing recommendations that must be answered within six months. As an example of the second case, it was described the support given to a NPM that was in trouble. In this context and during 3 days, meetings were held with the Government and NGOs, training sessions with the NPM and joint visits to places of detention. The final report of this visit the SPT was recognized as having been very important to the NPM. | 35