Pa r t i I . visiting team report their findings to the director of the visited establishment and the complainant remains anonymous if he/she does not file an official complaint. If the visitors are unable to confirm the complainant’s charges, these are reported during the summarising conversation as unverified reports, and it is the duty of the establishment’s director to investigate them. When the visit is completed, a report is drawn up which describes all the findings and conclusions, as well as recommendations for the body managing the visited establishment and for its supervisory bodies. If the establishment’s management does not agree with the recommendations, the representatives of the NPM request the supervisory bodies to issue their opinion and position on the matter. If the visitors reveal torture or inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment, the visitors file a notification of a suspicion of a crime following the visit. In each case, the victim must consent to having his/her personal data revealed and to referring the case to law enforcement bodies. Only drastic cases justify deviations from the rule. If so, the decision is made personally by the Human Rights Defender who signs the notifications of a suspicion of a crime. If the victim does not consent to report the case to the law enforcement bodies and, in the opinion of the visiting team, the possible inappropriate behaviour is not drastic, the visiting team treats the information obtained as reports which may point to inappropriate treatment of detainees and requests the directors of the establishments to explain the situation and present their conclusions. The situation is different when information about torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is derived from documents or CCTV footage, rather than directly from the victims. In such case, the visitors do not have to request consent for passing the case to law enforcement bodies and each time file a notification of a suspicion of a crime. 17