Part II: Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation The Swedish NPM has also mentioned that advantage of ‘semi-formal focal points’, not only to have persons the NPM can address for strategic questions, receive information and constructive feedback from, but in order to have someone within the authorities, who can explain the NPM’s work to other persons within the institutions. In conclusion, while the need for oral exchanges with the supervisory authorities is evident, it depends on the circumstances in each country on how an NPM wants to conduct it. For some, it may be sufficient to meet authorities ad hoc when necessary, for others, especially where the access to the relevant supervisory authorities is difficult to obtain, a regular forum may be useful. Such exchange should however be closely evaluated in view of its outcomes and effectiveness and to ensure that the NPM maintains professional distance safeguarding its position as independent actor. As noted above it is also important that a note of any oral exchanges, detailing the focus and decisions made, is recorded and adequately documented in order to facilitate follow-up. 1.5 Working groups A particularly interesting tool to ensure a regular, institutionalised and structured dialogue are specific working groups with the authorities. Some NPMs have established working groups on a permanent basis to enable an on-going discussion of the NPMs’ work, while others established working groups on an ad hoc basis in order to deal with a specific topic. They can either exclusively bring together state actors or include external experts and civil society members. Working groups have shown the potential to generate more responsibility from the authorities to engage in a pro-active dialogue with the NPM. Moreover effective and sustainable solutions often require the involvement of and coordination between several state actors. While the general risk of ineffective oral exchanges without outcome remains, working groups with a clearly defined goal and composed of the relevant and competent stakeholders and experts have proven to be a useful forum to jointly develop concrete plans and solutions for complex problems, and to assign responsibilities among the different actors. An example of good practice that the Study identified was to institutionalise direct and targeted exchange with the authorities through the creation of a permanent or ad hoc working group. If properly conceived it may combine the benefits of a regular oral exchange with structured and outcome-focused meetings. Moreover, a working group including different authorities from different levels of the state allows for a coordinated approach and might also allow bringing in external expertise. œœ Special thematic working groups In Austria, for example, there is a working group on police detention to discuss pending problems and possible solutions. Members of the NPM take part in this group and have stated that it presents a highly useful forum for direct interaction and finding solutions to complex problems.163 Moreover, two ad hoc working groups have been established in the process following a survey on systemic problems, both including NPM representatives: one by the Ministry of Justice to deal with the treatment of mentally ill criminal convicts in preventive custody (Maßnahmenvollzug), the other by a state (Länder) Government on social care homes for juveniles. While in the first case the working group has recently presented a study proposing legal and institutional changes, the other working group has already developed a stepby-step action plan on implementation together with the institutions concerned as well as the responsible ministry. Both working groups have furthermore included external experts to support the process. In Luxembourg, a special working group on the reform of the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure 163 E.g. by the previously overly strict criteria for being transferred to an ‘open regime’ in detention were re-defined in joint discussions. - 57 -