-30 (see below 3.5). Additional useful tools can be found in the ten building blocks of a systematic change perspective that we have proposed in earlier work, which include “Monitoring of implementation” and “Evaluation.”52 Application of the principle in preventive monitoring The SPT has been very clear in exhorting NPMs to engage in constant reflection and self-reflection. It considers “the development of national preventive mechanisms (…) an ongoing obligation, with formal aspects reinforced and working methods refined and improved incrementally.”53 In order to assist NPMs in this task of “self-evaluation”, it has prepared an “analytical tool for national preventive mechanisms”. This analytical tool “urges existing national preventive mechanisms and States parties to carry out self-evaluations systematically and periodically and improve their activities to bring them into line with the guidance compiled in the present tool.”54 A systemic approach would suggest that NPMs use professional methods and tools for engaging in self-reflective strategizing. Several NPMs have established advisory boards, which could be used as “sounding board” for systematic reflection and evaluation. However, it appears that this crucial role has not yet been developed in practice. Evaluations in NPM practice seem still rare, but examples and evaluation frameworks slowly develop. The UK NPM was one of the first to engage in a self-evaluation process on the basis of analytical assessment tools of the SPT55 and sends out an annual survey to cooperation partners. An ambitious approach has been by developed by Richard Carver and Lisa Handley on the basis of their work for the Georgian NPM.56 52. BIM/HRIC, 107. 53. CAT/OP/1/Rev.1, para. 5. 54. Ibid., para. 6. 55. UK National Preventive Mechanism, ‘Self-assessment of the UK NPM’ (UK NPM 2015). 56. Richard Carver and Lisa Handley, ‘Evaluating National Preventive Mechanisms: A Conceptual Model’ (2020) 12(2) Journal of Human Rights Practice (JHRP) 387–408.