-22 Application of the principle in preventive monitoring This principle explicitly urges preventive monitors to go beyond the concretely visible situations, events and structures. Obviously, poor material conditions of detention and other directly observable issues, such as lack of space for meaningful activities in prison, are important subject matters monitors will deal with. But: what leads to these conditions, what lies below their surface and what role do cultural patterns play? The detention monitoring tool “Institutional culture in detention: a framework for preventive monitoring” by APT and PRI provides useful guidance in this regard.32 This paper analyses cultural risk factors for torture and illtreatment, presents methods/ways to contribute to organizational culture change and identifies relevant drivers and contributing factors to such change. It also presents a well proven model for deciphering cultural issues within places of detention.33 In order to illustrate this point: the CPT has repeatedly stated that improvement in detention conditions requires a change of the selfunderstanding of prison staff as well as of the societal understanding of their role “as performing a public service, not an administrative function”.34 Obviously, these are issues that are difficult to tackle and which require thorough strategic thinking on how to bring about change. ••Questions for monitors • How much time is dedicated to this deeper analysis of the situation (like institutional culture in prisons)? Do these issues form an explicit part of the preparation and carrying out of the visit? • To which extent do reports and recommendations address these cultural issues? • Are cultural issues explicitly taken up in the dialogue with the authorities and other actors? 32. APT, Penal Reform International (PRI), ‘Institutional Culture in Detention: A Framework for Preventive Monitoring’ (2nd edn, Penal Reform International 2015) <https://cdn.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/culture-in-detention-2nd-ed-v6.pdf> [hereinafter: APT/PRI]. 33. Ibid., 5 et seq.; distinguishing three levels of cultural analysis, based on Schein, 1.: Analysis of artefacts, 2. Analysis of espoused beliefs and values, 3. Analysis of underlying assumptions. 34. See e.g. CPT/Inf (2010) 5, para. 71.