3.2. Meetings of the CCB tion to its description. According to the Document, the quality of the NPM’s reports could be improved via the proportionate description of the uncovered conditions and problems. Certain reports contained a wide range of references to the relevant international legal sources, which enriched the legal assessment of the problems uncovered in the inspected institutions. For instance, the report on the Juvenile Penitentiary Institution mentioned not only the relevant EU legal norms and CPT reports but also the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. According to the Working Group, the case-law of the aforementioned judicial body may provide significant, applicable standards and legal benchmarks for the assessment of circumstances prevailing in various detention facilities; therefore, they are worth being taken into account in the course of the reports’ drafting. According to the Document, the reports that, in general, can be considered as thorough and accurate in identifying problems, should be improved in the field of the recommendations set forth therein. In the Working Group’s opinion, “take-the-necessary-measures-type” recommendations are rather difficult to follow up efficiently. According to the Working Group, sharing the draft reports with the relevant, competent members of the CCB prior to their publication would lend a useful expert perspective to formulating specific recommendations. Preliminary consultations with the members of the CCB would offer a professional advantage enabling the NPM to consider and, if justified, use the incoming comments when finalizing the text of the report. I took into consideration the Document’s conclusions and recommendations and tried to use them, where possible, during the preparation of my reports published after the meeting. The main topic of the November 16, 2016 meeting of the CCB was the dialog conducted with the authorities targeted by the NPM’s recommendations and the implementation of the measures initiated by the NPM.57 In connection with the verbal discrimination used by the staff of the places of detention, participants discussed the possibilities of holding off-site training programs and conducting follow-up inspections in order to assess the efficiency of the measures taken. The representative of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee indicated that in 2017 they would start visiting places of detention already inspected by the NPM. The CCB’s members commented on the inspection of rooms, installations, and vehicles used during apprehension and detention, the enforce57 57 The documents related to the fifth meeting of the CCB can be found in my Office under file number AJB-7478/2016. The report on the meeting is accessible to the public on the NPM’s website. 25