2. Undertaking the monitoring activity Monitoring places of detention involves the collection of primary source data through the physical inspection of places of detention and the subsequent analysis of findings. In addition, process information (laws, regulations, policies and practices that are pertinent to the rights of detainees) is also gathered and analysed. National human rights institutions should use their authority to make unannounced visits in order to ensure that inspections reveal the true state of affairs: for instance, the physical conditions of prisons—such as cleanliness and the quality and sufficiency of food—could be altered if inspections are conducted with advance warning. Similarly, individual detainees could be moved to another facility if there is advance warning of an inspection. This is why it is important for institutions to have the right to enter and inspect places of detention without prior authorization. Similarly, a detainee’s assessment of the situation will likely differ depending on whether a prison official is present during the interview or the detainee is met in an unsupervised setting. National human rights institutions must have the right to interview detainees in private. National human rights institutions should attempt, whenever possible, to confirm information given to them during interviews. Many institutions will have a general interaction with detainees and then meet some or all of them individually. This is done to determine the consistency of their statements, both collectively and individually. If monitoring reveals possible human rights abuses, it is important to handle such instances through the investigative process, using the procedures and powers that go with it. An institution should establish procedures for this to be done quickly and effectively. The monitor may be mandated, for example, to accept a complaint immediately. A member of the monitoring team may also be an investigator with the skills to handle the issue immediately. Collected data must be analysed promptly in relation to acceptable standards. Sometimes this is relatively straightforward. For example, prisons are required to maintain a registry of all detainees, listing, inter alia, the date of, and reason for, incarceration and on whose authority the detainee is being incarcerated. The monitoring process can determine whether this has been done by reviewing the registry and cross tabulating it against information gathered from detainees during the visit. If, for instance, the institution finds a detainee in the prison not listed in the registry, a serious breach has occurred. Many standards are not so clear. Here the analysis should concentrate on, first, defining the scope of the problem: ■■ Does the problem apply generally or is it peculiar to a type of place of detention (e.g., national prisons are overcrowded but local jail cells are not); or ■■ Is the problem particular to one location, area or region, or is it true generally? The analysis should propose improvements over time: have the problems noted, whatever their scope, improved since the previous monitoring visit? The analysis of process data is the same as for monitoring general human rights situations: it concentrates on whether the procedures in place are appropriate, effectively applied and sufficient for the purposes intended. The findings or results of monitoring should be used to encourage positive change. As with other types of monitoring, a public report is often issued with recommendations (using the annual report or special reports as a vehicle) accompanied by an advocacy 123