Part II: Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation have extensive experience in commenting on laws and policies. In Estonia, the Ombuds institution even has a constitutional review competence and can analyse whether national laws are in accordance with the Constitution and international treaties. This competence also includes the possibility to ask the Parliament for modifications of the law or to turn to the Supreme Court to overturn the law. The task of commenting on laws and policies requires significant resources and expertise. Thus, not all NPMs are able to fulfil this task. The German NPM has only been able to respond to requests to comment on draft legislation after an increase in resources at the end of 2014. Before, it tried to include comments on legislative shortcomings into its visiting reports and suggested that a good way to become more active in commenting on laws and policies in times of scarce resources would be by way of cooperating with civil society experts, including universities or research institutes. Other NPMs, such as those in Bulgaria and Estonia, take part in working groups or commissions on the reform of certain laws (see Part II, Chapter 2.1), which can be a useful way to ensure the NPMs’ involvement in the legal reform process. œœ Proposing legal and policy changes NPMs can also proactively propose legal and policy changes. This is often done within the visit or annual reports of an NPM. However, in order to achieve better visibility for an issue of concern and facilitate the follow-up process it can be useful to issue thematic reports or specific opinions and recommendations. A good example is the express competence for the French NPM that has the right to ‘issue opinions, make recommendations to the public authorities and propose to the Government any amendment to applicable legislative and regulatory provisions. After having informed the authorities responsible, he may publish these opinions, recommendations or proposals, as well as any observations made by these authorities.’179 Moreover, the General Controller can address opinions to the authorities about Projects relating to construction, re-construction and refurbishment of all places of deprivation of liberty.180 Since 2008, the French NPM has produced 36 opinions and policy recommendations, some of them related to a policy in a specific place of detention, others of a more general nature. They have been published in the Official Gazette as well as compiled in a booklet published in French, English and Spanish.181 The recently established Hungarian NPM has also drafted specific policies, e.g. regarding guardianship for mentally disabled or ill persons or regarding protection of children against prostitution. In this regard it has specifically drawn on the relevant international obligations, e.g. the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities or the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography. In conclusion, although commenting on draft laws and policies may require significant resources, the authors of this Study would recommended NPMs to fulfil this part of their mandate as it is of crucial importance for the follow-up to recommendations. This will require the establishment of adequate procedures within the NPM and with the authorities. Further, it may be helpful to cooperate with other institutions and external experts to facilitate the process. NPMs should not only react but also bring forward their own proposals for legal and policy changes. Doing this via thematic reports and specific opinions and recommendations may be a very useful way to generate greater visibility and enhance the follow-up process. Ibid art 10. Ibid art 7. 181 Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT) and General Controller of Places of Deprivation of Liberty, Opinions and Recommendations of the French ‚Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté‘ 2008 – 2014 (2014) <http://www. apt.ch/content/files_res/avis-et-recommandations-cglpl_en-for-web.pdf>. 179 180 - 63 -