Introduction discussions. Secondly, two workshops were held in Vienna on 6-7 October 2014 and Bristol on 10-11 November 2014 creating a platform for mutual exchange of experiences and lessons learnt on follow-up of recommendations and joint identification of further needs and gaps in strategic coordination.11 The workshops, where EU NPMs, CPT, SPT, as well as selected representatives of state authorities and civil society were invited, also served to build a constructive relationship between the NPMs and the other actors and an informal network for the sharing of information. The workshops were followed-up by further research, in particular on how impact and change can be understood (e.g. ‘theory of change’- approaches) and in-depth bilateral phone consultations with NPM representatives.12 On the basis of the information collected throughout the Project, the present Study was drafted by BIM and HRIC and reviewed by an external review board composed of distinguished experts in the field of torture prevention and the work of monitoring bodies.13 The revised Study was disseminated and subsequently presented to all NPMs, CPT, SPT, civil society and independent experts involved in the Project on 29 April 2015 at the final Project conference in Vienna. Subsequently, final revisions were made on the basis of the discussions at the conference as well as written inputs received from a number of NPMs. Purpose of the Study The present Study focuses specifically on NPMs. It aims at collecting existing practices of follow-up to recommendations and identifying good practices, which might consequently be employed by other NPMs. Although NPMs have a broader preventive mandate, including the power to comment on draft legislation and promote and undertake educational work, this Project focused on the follow-up to their reports and recommendations. Additionally, the Study proposes a conceptual framework for the development of an effective follow-up strategy with the ultimate aim of enhancing the impact of the work of NPMs. The framework is inspired by the practices in other fields, including other areas of human rights, thereby drawing on lessons learnt by other actors. The authors consider that the inclusion of such a broader perspective could enrich NPM’s practice and open up new ways of thinking about follow-up tools. Structure of the Study The purpose mentioned above is reflected in the structure of the Study, which is separated into three main parts: Part I: Basis for an effective follow-up Part I deals with the basis for an effective follow-up. Chapter 1 provides some background information on the different NPM models in the EU. Chapter 2 discusses the concept of follow-up and considers the respective duties and roles for the range of actors that have the potential to influence follow-up and implementation. It also reflects on how to measure implementation and the difficulties and variables involved. Chapter 3 subsequently analyses principles underpinning follow-up, such as the preventive approach of NPMs, as set out under the OPCAT. It also explores the importance of the principles of independence, transparency, cooperation and dialogue and effectiveness for the follow-up by NPMs. Chapter 4 examines the drafting of quality reports, the formulation of effective recommendations, including the ‘double-SMART’ criteria Representatives from NPMs in the European Union from Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, France, Germany, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal Slovenia, the UK, the SPT, the CPT and other relevant stakeholders from the state, civil society and the European Union were present. Representatives from the Czech Republic, Denmark, Luxembourg, Spain and Sweden were invited but unable to attend. 12 See the Annex for the questions discussed during the consultations. 13 Consisting of Silvia Casale, former President of the SPT and the CPT, Richard Carver, Senior Lecturer in Human Rights and Governance from Oxford Brookes University and renowned expert on the effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions and torture prevention measures and Francesca Gordon, staff member of the CPT Secretariat and previously European NPM Project Manager at the CoE and Associate Inspector at Her Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons (HMIP/UK NPM), who provided comments in her capacity as peer-reviewer and not on behalf of the CPT. 11 - 18 -