Introduction ‘If we do not achieve that our recommendations improve the situation of the persons deprived of their liberty, we fail’.1 Background of the Project Nearly a decade has passed since the entry into force of the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT), which — through its two level system of preventive monitoring of places of detention2 — provides state parties with systematic observations and recommendations by the international UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT) and National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) on how to improve conditions of detention and the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty. Of all the regions worldwide, Europe has the highest density of state parties that have established NPMs, with 24 NPMs currently designated to carry out preventive visits to places of detention in the European Union (EU). In addition, the SPT visits state parties and provides guidance on the development of NPMs, whilst the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) conducts visits to detention facilities in Council of Europe (CoE) member states providing detailed reports and recommendations, as well as a comprehensive body of standards on the treatment in detention. NPMs are given a broad preventive mandate and corresponding powers under the OPCAT.3 In accordance with the OPCAT, NPMs are to conduct visits to all places of detention;4 to regularly examine the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty;5 to make recommendations;6 and to submit proposals and observations on existing or draft legislation,7 all with the aim of improving, where necessary, the treatment and conditions of persons deprived of the liberty and strengthening protection against torture and other ill-treatment. Thus the overall purpose of NPMs can be summarised in the following way: NPMs are to identify factors existing within a state that may increase the risk of torture and other ill-treatment and contribute to systemic/structural and sustainable change in societies towards improving the treatment and the conditions of persons deprived of the liberty (detainees)8 and preventing torture and other illtreatment.9 As more NPMs begin to operate and generate recommendations, their work is coming under greater scrutiny and one of the main challenges faced ‘is ensuring that their recommendations are implemented and lead to real changes in the practice of deprivation of liberty. Impact obviously constitutes the litmus test of the work of monitoring bodies.’10 If the visits do not lead to change, there is the risk that this will lead to a ‘monitoring fatigue’, both among the institutions visited and the monitoring mechanism itself. At the domestic level, the OPCAT foresees a systematic and regular dialogue between NPMs and national authorities on the status of implementation of recommendations. The practice of the CPT and SPT also illustrates the importance of structured dialogue and follow-up to country specific recommendations to promote and support their implementation. The question therefore arises how the follow-up procedures Alberto Volpi, Argentinian NPM in Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT), Preventing torture – A shared responsibility, Regional Forum on the OPCAT in Latin America (2014) 72 [hereinafter: APT, Regional Forum in Latin America (2014)]. 2 For the purpose of this Study, ‘places of detention’ are understood as defined by art 4 OPCAT. While there might be particular challenges regarding places of detention run by private entities, the limited scope of this Study prevents elaborating on these special cases and will focus on the follow-up of recommendations to state authorities. 3 See arts 1, 3, 4, 17-23 OPCAT. 4 See arts 1, 4 and 20 OPCAT. 5 Art 19(a) OPCAT. 6 Art 19(b) OPCAT. 7 Art 19(c) OPCAT. 8 For the purposes of this Study, the term ‘detainees’ will be used for ‘persons deprived of their liberty’ as defined by art 4(1) OPCAT. 9 This is implied by arts 1 and 19 OPCAT. 10 APT, Regional Forum in Latin America (2014) 72. 1 - 16 -