Methodology officially, the visitors consider the information as a  report to be investigated in a way that prevents identifying the source. If the unlawful event is confirmed, the members of the 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 establishment director’s duty 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 NPM representatives 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. In drastic cases, it is admitted to depart from the rule, and the decision is made personally by the Human Rights Defender who signs the notifications of a suspicion of a crime. The situation is different when information about torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is derived from documents or CCTV footage, not 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. 23