Part I: Basis for an effective follow-up lawyer, medical examinations, etc. The HMIP, one of the bodies in the UK NPM, also uses color-coding in its reports, for example, in its tables comparing responses to its prisoner surveys, as a way of highlighting where the responses indicate that an aspect of detention being monitored is significantly better or worse or even where there has been no significant change since the last survey.45 This helps as a starting point for HMIP inspectors to orientate and focus their research immediately pre-visit and plan certain key areas that must be covered during the visit. Yet, as discussed above, measuring implementation can be difficult and depends on what is being measured and how. As some NPMs stated, measuring implementation is not a ‘mathematical’ or ‘mechanical’ exercise and it may not always be black and white.46 Some NPMs do not adopt rigid criteria for assessing implementation recognising that it very much depends on the nature of the concern. As the Slovenian NPM (Human Rights Ombudsman) told us: ‘some (e.g. broken toilet seat) are easy to define as being implemented or not, while others (e.g. programme for sexual offenders) are anything but clear-cut cases’. Similarly, it has been observed that recommendations that address systemic issues are more difficult to follow-up. For example, in the UK a recent comparative study of inspection bodies noted that ‘[i]nspectorates said that the absence of an obvious implementation route for recommendations that affect whole systems is a significant challenge for them.’47 Assessing the extent to which recommendations of those NPMs under our review were actually implemented was not an aim of this research Project given that the grounds on which NPMs decide implementation or failure to implement are not consistent between NPMs and any comparison between them in this respect, therefore, will not be meaningful. Typically the NPMs we interviewed have not developed or used indicators or benchmarks as tools to assess steps taken to implement recommendations. The starting point for NPMs is, of course, the recommendation itself and revisiting the establishment to observe first-hand any changes. Follow-up visits were therefore considered to be the primary practical tool to assess implementation. In addition, as discussed in Part I, Chapter 4.2, the consultations with the NPMs underscored the importance of the recommendations being drafted in a ‘SMART’ way in order to aid the process of measuring implementation. A clearly written, realistic recommendation will be easier to measure than one which is vague, overly broad and complex. However, a few examples of types of ‘indicators’ being used to assess levels of implementation were identified. For example, the Estonian NPM (Office of the Chancellor of Justice) uses individual applications to the Ombudsman as one tool to measure implementation. Thus if the NPM is part of an Ombuds institution and/or has a mandate to receive and investigate complaints, a close cooperation between the department handling complaints and the NPM may be useful as the number and content of complaints may be a useful indicator of the extent to which a given recommendation is implemented. While we would not advocate that NPMs should necessarily adopt complex indicators to assess and categorise levels of implementation, we would recommend that NPMs consider how they will measure implementation at the time of drafting recommendations and have a strategy in place to consider how they will present their assessment of the level of implementation. This is helpful for NPMs themselves to measure their own impact, legitimise their role to the public and other stakeholders, to be able to insert persistently non-complied with recommendations into a future targeted thematic or ad hoc visit, as well as the development of key focus areas for future visits. 3. Principles underpinning follow-up 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 UK, HMIP visit reports are available at: <https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/inspections/#.VQBgA_ msWSr>. 46 E.g. the Netherlands and France. 47 UK, National Audit Office (NAO), Inspection: A comparative study (2015) para 2.7 [hereinafter: UK, NAO, Inspection (2015)]. - 27 45