-60 transparency should become a standard in NPM practice in general. 6. Addressing vulnerability. Sensitivity to different vulnerable groups in detention should not guide the monitor’s work only when working on a “project” of monitoring the rights of persons in a situation of vulnerability. A number of NPMs shared - both in the framework of this project, as well as in their publications - that addressing vulnerability should be inherent in every monitoring activity. This principle also requires that the NPM makes a sound assessment of which are the groups, and who are the individuals in a situation of vulnerability in each detention facility. Identification of such groups and individuals leads to appropriate arrangements regarding the composition of the monitoring team, identification of the specific monitoring methods, and determining the precautionary measures in order to ensure the detainees’ safety. 3.3.4. Monitoring methods, their choice and their application to persons and groups in a situation of vulnerability Human rights monitoring in general and monitoring places for deprivation of liberty in particular should use, where appropriate and feasible, all the methods used in social research, and should abide by the rules governing their application. This, along with the proper application of monitoring principles, is a guarantee for obtaining credible information, and for preserving the integrity of the monitoring institution. NPMs should include among their staff persons who are experienced in the application of social research methods. They should also train their monitors in the latter and should offer their research plans to experts in social research for evaluation. Social research uses two types of methods – qualitative (observation, interviews, analysis of complaints, case studies, etc.) and quantitative (statistical analysis, correlational research, cluster analysis, surveys, etc.). Both types are applicable in monitoring the rights of persons in a situation of vulnerability in detention, although so far the preference of NPMs and of international torture-prevention bodies has been overwhelmingly to qualitative methods. Part of the reasons for this preference lies in the specific modalities of detention monitoring carried out by international bodies, the CPT and the SPT – their relatively short country visits in the course of which their delegations visit as many places for deprivation of liberty as possible. The NPMs however seem to be in a better situation to