Part I: Basis for an effective follow-up Achievable recommendations While there was general consensus among NPMs participating in the two workshops in the framework of this Project that recommendations need to be realistic, in practice this can raise a number of strategic considerations. For example, when the NPM identifies underlying factors and attempts to address them with a view to long-term change, it might be difficult to draft recommendations that are achievable and feasible in the short term. One tactic is to take a step-by-step approach which defines an end-goal but with specific tasks and goals within a set time-frame. A more controversial area here is the extent to which the budgetary resources and constraints of the institution being inspected should be considered by the NPM when formulating its recommendations. Although the APT and many of the NPMs participating in the workshops did not believe that these should be taken into account, in practice, however, this may be problematic when trying to draft achievable recommendations, and in part depend upon to whom the recommendation is addressed. The UK NPM’s own evaluation of its work revealed that only a ‘minority’ of the bodies in the NPM take the budget into account, although some ‘were conscious of resources.’88 Silvia Casale, former President of the SPT and the CPT, mentions regarding this discussion: A management consultant approach might take resources into account to the extent of compromising on the content of recommendations in line with the client’s policy direction, whereas NPMs should not compromise on principle, but might refer to resources as an inhibiting factor in terms of the timing of implementation. If a place of detention is overcrowded, the NPM must say so and should recommend improvement, even though this may have huge budget implications.89 Offering solutions The extent to which the NPM itself should be offering solutions or assuming an advisory role is an issue upon which there was less of an agreement among the NPMs consulted in the framework of this Project. The NPM of Portugal (Ombudsman) for example stated that it tries to offer a ‘feasible path’ to the authorities,90 the Cypriot NPM (Office for the Commissioner for the Administration and Human Rights – Ombudsman) mentioned it will put forward ‘what it wants to see as a change.’91 Some NPM representatives cautioned against giving concrete solutions in the process of advising the state, thus going into the ‘management of institution’ and underlined the need for the authorities to have ownership over the implementation process. Others explained that sometimes it is necessary to propose detailed, but realistic solutions in order to make sure that authorities were indeed taking steps towards implementation and changing sometimes long-held practices. The Croatian NPM furthermore explained that, while it is usually left to the authorities how they implement, it also depends on the kind of recommendation, whether a very concrete proposal is given or whether this is left open for the authorities, e.g. the details of a suggested legal amendment. According to Silvia Casale, it is always ‘possible to identify a series of elements in the system that need to be addressed without providing a step-by-step game plan.’92 The Czech NPM underlined that, while each of its recommendations is specific, argued and always contains a time limit for the facility, it does not suggest solutions every time, especially when the root of the problem lies in the lack of expertise. The Czech NPM considers it as ‘too easy for the facility to simply fulfil our recommendation’, while the cause of the problem remains.93 Thus in the case of structural causes, this is analysed by the NPM in the report to the facility, with a recommendation then being made to the supervisory authority responsible. UK, NPM, Making Recommendations (2014) para 7. Comments provided by Silvia Casale during the peer review of this Study. 90 Consultations with Portuguese NPM, 27 February 2015. Bristol workshop, 10-11 November 2014. 91 Consultations with Cypriot NPM, 24 February 2015. 92 Comments provided by Silvia Casale during the peer review of this Study. 93 Written consultations with Czech NPM, 5 March 2015. 88 89 - 38 -