Part I: Basis for an effective follow-up Content As for the content and structure of a comprehensive annual report of an NPM, both the SPT and the Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT) have provided guidance.67 Firstly, it is recommended to include a brief introductory part dedicated to country-specific background information, covering the OPCAT and the NPM institution, with a specific focus on its functioning and operation as well as challenges encountered in the execution of its mandate. This would facilitate the dissemination of the report to those that might not yet be aware of the NPM and its role, including staff of state institutions not yet visited, the media or the general public. Secondly, the SPT and APT have recommended that annual reports should also include information on the visits carried out as well as on recommendations issued. In the case of subsequent reports, some NPMs noted that they found it useful to dedicate one part of the report to the issue of implementation as a way to raise the visibility of the status of such and as a means to encourage compliance. The French NPM (General Controller of Places of Deprivation of Liberty), for example, includes a chapter on follow-up and evaluation in every annual report. The SPT in its ‘Analytical self-assessment tool’ for NPMs further specifies that NPMs’ annual reports may include:68 • accounts of current challenges to the protection of the rights of persons deprived of their liberty and to the effective execution of the NPM’s mandate, and strategic short and longer term plans, including setting priorities; • analysis of the most important findings and an account of recommendations and the responses of the authorities to them; • follow-up on issues outstanding from previously published reports; • consideration of thematic issues; • accounts of cooperation with other actors on the prevention of torture. The SPT also stipulates that annual reports should ‘in addition to recommendations for change, include the outcome of the dialogue with authorities.’69 The amount of detail included on implementation in the annual report varies from NPM to NPM. For example, in response to requests made by civil society representatives, the Spanish NPM includes an Annex to its annual reports, containing all recommendations issued to authorities, including the reaction from authorities.70 Amounting to almost 90 pages, every single recommendation by the NPM, the addressee of the recommendation, a hyperlink reference to the paragraph in earlier annual reports, if already published previously and the reaction of the authorities is included. These hyperlinks to the NPM recommendations published in previous annual reports can also be found in the text describing the general situation and findings of the NPM. In its 2013 report, the Spanish NPM also included an overview regarding the status of implementation of all recommendations. This can be very useful in providing detailed information. In cases of systematic non-implementation, there is however a balance to be struck in terms of whether NPMs also give any explanation on how to address these incidents. The extent to which the annual report should contain this level of detail is an interesting question. For transparency and accountability and because it may often have to be laid before and on some occasions prompt debate by Parliament, the greater the detail on implementation the better. This may be particularly important if debate in the legislature is unlikely to take place on the content of each of the visit reports or other findings of the NPM, or if the annual report can attract media attention and publicity. APT, National Preventive Mechanisms: Drafting effective annual reports, OPCAT Briefings (2012) 3 [hereinafter: APT, Drafting effective annual reports (2012)]. 68 SPT, UN Doc CAT/OP/1, para 8. 69 Ibid 6. 70 See Spain, Ombudsman Institution, Annual Report 2012 13. 67 - 32 -