Part II: Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation discussions on how to strengthen the impact of their work.219 Similar exercises, using the self-assessment tool as a starting point, could be undertaken by NPMs in other countries in order to inform their approach to follow-up. While the general statements and recommendations in the ‘Analytical self-assessment tool’ are useful in emphasising the need for a follow-up strategy, a number of NPMs consulted under this Project recommended that the SPT could consider developing more specific guidance for NPMs on follow-up and assessing implementation. The SPT also encourages NPMs to submit annual reports, which are subsequently posted on the SPT’s website. As well as supporting the principle of transparency, submitting an annual report to the SPT can offer an additional avenue for NPMs to publicise their work, findings and recommendations, provided that such information is included in the annual report. Depending on the number of visit reports produced by the NPM, these can also be submitted to the SPT for their information. Indeed, the SPT informed us that it examines all reports it receives and provides feedback to NPMs. However, if the number of reports produced is large then strategic choices will have to be made to avoid flooding the SPT with information and ensure that any information shared is relevant, useful and for a purpose. Prior to a visit by the SPT to a state party the NPM concerned should share a range of information with the SPT, including of course its recommendations and any data on the status of implementation. The SPT can subsequently use this information to inform its own visit, for example by deciding which places of detention to visit or any particular issues to focus on, as well as of course using the visit to discuss the recommendations and implementation measures with the NPM and relevant authorities directly. In relation to the SPT’s own recommendations, the SPT Guidelines expressly state that NPMs should ‘[…] actively seek to follow-up on the implementation of any recommendations which the SPT has made in relation to the country in question, liaising with the SPT when doing so.’220 Therefore it is envisaged that the relationship between the SPT and NPMs should be collaborative and mutually reinforcing. However, the extent to which NPMs can follow-up on the SPT’s own recommendations will depend on whether the state party concerned has agreed for these to be made public. As NPMs are not under any similar principle of confidentiality with respect to their own recommendations, there is greater opportunity for the SPT to assist the process of follow-up on the NPM recommendations and we have been informed that there have been occasions on which NPMs have approached the SPT for assistance in implementing the formers’ recommendations.221 Moreover, the Guidelines of the SPT are currently being discussed in view of strengthening the guidance on follow-up processes. 2.5.3 Cooperation with the CPT While the CPT is not explicitly mandated to support NPMs, the CPT’s work can be useful for the follow-up to NPM recommendations in several ways. A CPT visit can be used to support the NPM and its recommendations, for example by organising joint meetings with the authorities and the CPT raising the NPM’s concern with the authorities or in the visit report. Moreover, the NPM can use the CPT’s reports and standards to strengthen their own recommendations and their implementation. NPMs can furthermore get in contact with the CPT’s respective desk officers for guidance, although this possibility has hardly been used in the past. However, the need for a closer cooperation with the CPT was expressed by several NPMs and the establishment of a direct and permanent line of communication was proposed, e.g. through telephone. For details of the UK’s methodology in applying the self-assessment tool in practice see UK, NPM, ‘Self-assessment of the UK NPM’ (2015). 220 SPT, UN Doc CAT/OP/12/5, para 38. 221 Comments provided by Mari Amos, April 2015. 219 - 76 -