Part II: Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation There are a number of ways in which NPMs generally engage with Parliament: œœ Presentation of reports to Parliament The SPT recommends that the state should ensure that the annual report of the NPM ‘is presented to, and discussed in, by the national legislative assembly, or Parliament.’186 This not only helps to underpin the principle of transparency but can also provide a platform for dialogue between the NPM and the legislature. Moreover, in light of the express mandate set out under the OPCAT for NPMs to provide proposals and observations on existing or draft legislation,187 the SPT also recommends that NPMs advocate and lobby with parliamentarians for necessary legislative changes and their implementation.188 The extent to which the presentation of annual reports before Parliament impacts on implementation depends in part on the depth and detail of the recommendations that are contained in the reports. As noted above, this varies significantly from NPM to NPM. In most countries the NPM’s annual reports are submitted to the Parliament; especially for Ombuds institutions this is a common duty (e.g. in Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, Portugal etc.).189 Some NPMs also present and discuss the report in the plenary or sessions of special committees (e.g. in Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Slovenia, etc.). In Portugal, after the delivery of the Ombudsman and NPM report to Parliament and its publication online and in the Official Gazette, they are summoned to a meeting with the Parliament’s Committee of Constitutional Matters and Fundamental Rights, to discuss the content of the report. One MP serves as rapporteur of the Committee, drafting a document on the annual report that is finally discussed together with the Annual report in a plenary session of the Parliament. In Croatia, the Ombudsman report is even put to a vote, although the Parliament does not have the possibility to reject it.190 While this may increase the likeliness of Parliamentarians to participate in discussions, a no vote was said to have been problematic in the past. Presentations in Parliament may provide for a useful forum to strengthen the visibility of the NPM and its positions and to discuss issues of implementation. However, in some institutions despite a requirement to lay the annual report before Parliament, this can be little more than perfunctory and debate may not necessarily follow. Some NPMs, particularly those embedded within Ombuds institutions (e.g. Austria, Estonia), enjoy a right to speak in the Parliament. This has at times been a useful platform for follow-up, for example, in Estonia, the right to speak was inter alia used to discuss the issue of rehabilitation of children with addiction. In the framework of the discussion, the NPM also organised a roundtable in Parliament. Other NPMs attend parliamentary hearings or debates upon request (e.g. in France, Netherlands). œœ Bringing issues of non-implementation before Parliament A particularly interesting tool is the express right enjoyed by a few NPMs to bring issues of implementation before Parliament. For example, the Bulgarian, Croatian, and Portuguese NPMs have the possibility to inform the Parliament if recommendations are not being implemented.191 In addition, the Portuguese Ombudsman Statute equally provides for the possibility that ‘[i]f the executive body of a local council does not comply with the recommendations of the Ombudsman, he may address the deliberative assembly’;192 and ‘[s]hould the Administration act in defiance of his recommendations or should it refuse to cooperate See SPT, UN Doc CAT/OP/12/5, para 29. Art 19(c) OPCAT. 188 SPT, UN Doc CAT/OP/1, para 28. 189 E.g. Austria, Law of the Austrian Ombudsman Board, art 148; Cyprus, Cyprus, Ombudsman law, art 12. 190 BIM and HRIC, ‘Baseline study on follow-up of NPMs in the EU: Country Chapter Croatia’ (November 2014). 191 For example art 7 of the Croatian Ombudsman Act states: “If the bodies mentioned in the paragraph 3 of this article have not in a proper term taken measures in accordance with his requests or in accordance with his recommendations, the Ombudsman shall inform about that the Sabor of the Republic of Croatia (Parliament) and appeal to the public. The Ombudsman may publish his warnings, notices, requests and recommendations in the means of public communication, and those institutions have to publish them.” 192 Portugal, Ombudsman Statute, art 38(5). 186 187 - 66 -