Part II: Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation NPM sends its report to the Association of Judges but has not yet received a response. The Polish NPM generally sends its visiting reports to the competent court supervising the relevant place of detention. œœ Cooperation with visiting judges A particularly interesting process of interaction has evolved in Slovenia, where judges are obliged to regularly visit detainees and inquire about their treatment. In order to strengthen the dialogue with judges, raise their awareness about the issues detected and follow-up individual cases of violations, the NPM has invited court presidents to final meetings with prison directors. In addition, in some states judges may visit places of detention, including care homes and psychiatric institutions in order to process their cases.196 œœ Participation in court proceedings In France, the NPM has participated in court proceedings. The General Controller had been requested to appear as a witness in an individual case. However, it argued that testifying in an individual case on the general situation of a particular place of detention would have been in violation of his duty of confidentiality.197 Moreover, it intervened during an administrative court proceeding following the urgent recommendations on the ‘Baumettes’ remand prison in Marseille and proceedings initiated by an NGO in order to achieve emergency repairs in the prison. The French NPM is also considering intervening before the Supreme Court in specifically important cases and has written an amicus curiae brief in a case before the ECtHR. Although participation by NPMs in court proceedings is uncommon, there is considerable potential for such opportunities to be used with respect to follow-up on recommendations. œœ Meetings and exchanges In addition, some general opportunities for NPMs to interact with the judiciary were identified, although the extent to which these are specifically relevant to follow-up is not always clear. For example, in Austria, representatives of the Ombudsman participate in fora where judges are present (e.g. seminars, ongoing trainings, etc.) to explain the NPM’s mandate and to discuss issues of relevance for both institutions. In Estonia the Ombudsman (Chancellor of Justice) is a member of the Council for Administration of Courts that mainly deals with administrative questions but provides an excellent forum for dialogue with judges. The French NPM has had several meetings with judges including the head of Supreme Court. Some NPMs have noted that another possibility to interact with the judiciary is to invite judges to events and to participate in training for the judiciary (e.g. in France). A permanent interaction with the judiciary can be found by integrating them in working groups or, as in Portugal, nominate a judicial representative to be part of the inter-institutional advisory council (see Part II, Chapter 2.4). While this does not yet seem to be the case in the examples mentioned, the described fora could also be used to specifically discuss the issue of (non) implementation of recommendations and the role of the judiciary. The NPM in Luxembourg furthermore emphasised the need for trust building that has to be bolstered by professional legal competence ‘as each professional group, including judges, speak their own language.’ Overall, therefore, one could conclude that in many jurisdictions cooperation between NPMs and the judiciary appears to be a particularly underdeveloped and sensitive area. At the same time the experience of a few NPMs shows that there are many useful ways to cooperate without any risk of interfering with judicial independence. In addition, there is a need to consider further how such opportunities can be extended with respect to follow-up on recommendations. At the consultation workshops of this Project, many NPMs have expressed a need for further reflections on good ways to interact with the judiciary and guidance in this respect from the SPT. Comments provided by Mari Amos, April 2015. For more information on the French NPM´s intervention before the Cour d’assises see <http://www.cglpl.fr/2013/ intervention-de-jean-marie-delarue-devant-la-3eme-section-de-la-cour-dassises-de-paris/>. 196 197 - 69 -