Executive Summary The basis for effective follow-up The purpose of the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) is the prevention of torture, more precisely ‘improving the treatment and the conditions of the persons deprived of their liberty and to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. In order to effectively prevent torture and other ill-treatment the OPCAT establishes a triangular relationship between the state party, its National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) and the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT) through a series of obligations and corresponding duties. The OPCAT envisages a role for NPMs in monitoring, and facilitating implementation and compliance by states parties. States bear the responsibility for implementing recommendations of NPMs, and other monitoring bodies. However, it is commonly accepted that NPMs have a role, and a responsibility, to follow-up on their recommendations. Follow-up is understood to be the process by which a monitoring body seeks information on measures taken by states, and other stakeholders, in relation to their recommendations and observations, as well as actively encourages and fosters the implementation of its recommendations in a number of different ways. The mandate of NPMs as set out under the OPCAT is guided by a number of fundamental principles to ensure their effectiveness such as: a preventive approach, independence, transparency, cooperation and constructive dialogue. These principles must guide all aspects of the mandate of NPMs including any follow-up. Quality reporting and effective recommendations are an essential component of each NPM’s monitoring function. Moreover, the way reports and recommendations are written will be instrumental for the success of the follow-up process as they are the basis for constructive dialogue with the relevant authorities. In light of the broad range of places of detention that NPMs are mandated to visit, multidisciplinary input is required in order to develop recommendations that address the specificities of the different types of place of detention and deprivation of liberty. Furthermore, in order to assist follow-up and effectively track progress made to implement recommendations, NPMs should establish effective data management systems. Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation A review of the practices of NPMs operating in the European Union (EU) reveals that NPMs use a number of different tools in order to follow-up and promote implementation of their recommendations. However, beyond visits and written dialogue, the dialogue with the competent authorities and other actors is yet rarely institutionalised. Overall NPMs in the EU spend relatively little resources on follow-up and the tools used are not part of a comprehensive follow-up strategy. Nevertheless, from these experiences and approaches a number of good practices can be identified. Some NPMs use specific follow-up visits — focusing on specific issues and concerns — while others are reflecting on how to better use visits to follow-up recommendations and strengthen the dialogue with the visited institutions in general. Surveys before or following a visit have helped NPMs to assess the scope of a problem and the development of a follow-up plan. By issuing thematic reports, circulars and newsletters some NPMs inform the authorities of specific problems and strengthen transparency and communication. Demanding the authorities to develop action plans has shown to be a particularly useful means to set a clear framework for implementation, and facilitate the monitoring and evaluation. NPMs ensure the crucial personal and oral exchange with the authorities through meetings, ad hoc or institutionalised. In this regard working groups, either general or with a specific thematic focus, have been very useful to enhance the dialogue and develop steps forward for the implementation of NPM recommendations. These should ideally take place on a regular level while at the same time ensuring effectiveness and impact-orientation. Some NPMs have also made effective use of special or general - 10 -