Part I: Basis for an effective follow-up The German NPM (National Agency for the Prevention of Torture) emphasised the necessity to highlight clearly issues and challenges in its reports, but explained that it does not always point out the path towards finding solutions because the authorities should have discretion with regard to the implementation of the recommendations. Thus the aim that should be achieved is clear but not the path to achieve it. There are still some questions regarding the extent to which the NPM should, or is able to, be available to assist the authorities in places of detention if they have questions on implementation, any challenges they face, along the way. A close engagement with the authorities can in turn ensure that the NPM is able to identify any concerns and correct them before they progress. Conversely, however, there is a balance between ensuring that it is the authorities that take responsibility for implementation and whether the NPM itself has the resources to provide this on-going advice.94 Prioritisation of recommendations There was also a great variety of practice among NPMs regarding the prioritisation of recommendations. Some NPMs do not prioritise their recommendations (e.g. in Austria, Croatia, Cyprus or France) although they categorise them in different ways. The Croatian NPM separates recommendations in its reports according to the receiving institution, and the French NPM does not prioritise its recommendations but adds a summary, including all recommendations, which it lists from general to specific as well as different thematic recommendations. The Slovenian NPM does also not prioritise its recommendations with the list including all recommendations at the end of its report being in no particular order. It does, however, place the recommendations in bold text in the visiting reports, including those findings for which they expect to receive a response from the authorities. In contrast, the German NPM, for example, creates two categories within its reports, one consisting of ‘recommendations’, stemming from the core mandate of the NPM, the other being ‘further proposals for improvement’, going beyond this core mandate, with the NPM therefore not insisting on implementation. The Bulgarian NPM can issue ‘normal’ recommendations under article 28(d) of the Law on Ombudsman but also has additional powers to issue recommendations under article 46 of the Law on Implementation of Penal Sanctions on Detention. The latter enables it to make recommendations such as the closure, reconstruction or expansion of particular institutions or facilities within institutions in order to deal with threats to the physical or mental health of detainees. In part the need for prioritisation may depend on the number of recommendations being issued, which can vary significantly from NPM to NPM. The Study has shown large variations in the number of recommendations issued by NPMs per year, from 6 in 2013 for the NPM of Croatia to 253 for the same year for the Bulgarian NPM, and can vary per report, for example in the UK, this was from 3 to 63.95 Several NPMs prioritise their recommendations according to urgency, for example, the Bulgarian NPM first stresses recommendations on life, health and physical integrity, with administrative issues and material conditions coming afterwards. The Bulgarian NPM recommendations regarding life and health are always time-bound and specific. The Czech NPM also structures its visit reports according to the relevance of topics, with the criterion being the gravity of the violation. The structure of a visit report to a nursing home for the elderly with dementia thus was the following: 1. Human dignity, 2. Right to privacy, 3. Quality of care (malnutrition, hydration, etc.), 4. Safety, and 5. Freedom of movement. Furthermore it places the most important information at the beginning and at the end of its reports and generally endeavours to be as informative as possible. 94 95 Comments provided by Mari Amos, April 2015. UK, NPM, Making Recommendations (2014) para 4. See also UK, NAO, Inspection (2015) para 2.12, which noted in relation to inspection bodies in the UK (which included some members of the NPM) that government ‘departments could be overwhelmed with the volume of recommendations made’. - 39 -