Annual report 2011: Spain’s National Preventive Mechanism same time, when the authorities show themselves to be unwilling to take into consideration or implement the recommendations that emerge from each inspection visit, the Office of the Ombudsman may formally resort to the recourses vested in it under law, such as recommendations, suggestions and reminders of legal duty. The report is constructive and pedagogical in nature Follow-up visits were made to check that earlier recommendations were being implemented and identify any further shortcomings where relevant To date, the authorities responsible have all cooperated with the NPM The report is similar in structure to the 2010 report, and also covers multi-disciplinary inspection visits 14  7. In short, the Ombudsman seeks to ensure that the authorities do not see the NPM as a body whose basic remit is to criticise and file complaints, but rather as a mechanism with which they can cooperate to improve their practices and work towards what should be a common goal: the prevention of torture and mistreatment. Promoting human rights and disseminating the associated values is an essential task of the Ombudsman, and that includes educating society in general and the actors directly involved in dealing with and watching over persons deprived of their liberty in particular: this report seeks to be a useful, effective tool for achieving that purpose. 8.  The Ombudsman also monitors the implementation of the recommendations made and checks that official responses match what is actually happening. It does this by making further inspection visits to come places of deprivation of liberty. In 2011 this included follow-up visits to Civil Guard establishments in Intxaurrondo (Donostia/San Sebastián) and Arguineguín (Las Palmas), to the Detention Centre for Foreign Nationals in Valencia, to the Central District police station in Madrid and to the Central Register of Detainees of the National Police, also in Madrid. As indicated, such follow-up visits give the NPM a chance to check at first hand that its earlier recommendations have been implemented, but they also provide an opportunity to identify further shortcomings and points where work is required other than those detected on the initial inspection visits. 9. In general, the attitude of the authorities responsible for the places of deprivation of liberty inspected by the representatives of the Ombudsman has been one of cooperation. However, mention must be made of an incident during the visit to the EDM in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, when the inspectors were prevented from taking photos or accessing disciplinary files for “reasons of national security”. This was reported to the Ministry of Defence so that appropriate corrective measures could be taken. There was no such lack of cooperation on the inspection visit to the EDM at San Cristóbal de La Laguna (Santa Cruz de Tenerife) the following week, where no such restrictions were imposed. 10.  The following pages contain a detailed report of the activities of the Ombudsman as the NPM in 2011. As in the 2010 report, the inspection visits made are grouped according to the duration of deprivation of liberty (short-, mediumand long-term). The multi-disciplinary visits made since this form of inspection was introduced in October 2011 are included under each heading.   THE OMBUDSMAN OF SPAIN