Part III: A systematic change perspective Preliminary remarks This Part differs from the previous one as it goes beyond the collection and analysis of good practice but proposes a conceptual framework for the development of an effective follow-up strategy of NPMs. As mentioned in the introduction of this Study, Part III was added in the course of the Project because of two interrelated reasons: Firstly, it became increasingly clear that systematic follow-up strategies of NPMs were still lacking, a finding which was confirmed in the context of the final conference; secondly, the applicability of tools and means of follow-up depends on the context and circumstances in which an NPM operates. Thus, which tools are used and how must be embedded in an overall strategy of the NPM. As a consequence, the authors felt that it was worthwhile to look at the experience of other organisations/ institutions, working in the broad field of human rights, and see whether their attempts to enhance effectiveness of their work can be useful for NPMs. Furthermore, academic literature was consulted in order to identify insights which can be of help to the work of NPMs. The ten building blocks of an effective follow-up strategy of NPMs which are presented in this Part are the result of this effort. They are meant to constitute food for thought for strategic approaches of NPMs. It should be clear that this is a first attempt to present a more coherent frame for coming to grips with NPM strategising. The idea is to test it out and see whether it can be useful in practice; and how it can be improved. Feedback, comments and proposals for improvement are very welcome. 1. Introducing a systematic change perspective: NPMs as agents of change The very purpose of NPMs can be summarised in the following way: NPMs contribute to systemic and sustainable change towards improving the treatment and the conditions of detainees and preventing torture and ill-treatment. In the light of the purpose of the OPCAT, NPMs clearly are ‘agents of change’. This Study shows the many ways in which NPMs already contribute to a process of positive change in places of detention. The good practices described in the preceding Parts can be seen as examples where the authors of this Study think the potential of NPMs for contributing to change is particularly strong. At the same time, the research revealed that there is little concrete reflection on the actual impact of NPMs and, indeed, about the ways in which change within places under the OPCAT mandate happens. Furthermore, systematic and strategic approaches to maximising NPM’s impact are still in the process of being developed. Several reasons might explain this: NPMs are mostly relatively young institutions. Thus, they are often still primarily concerned with ensuring a set-up according to the minimum requirements of the OPCAT (e.g. full independence from the state, developing a plan and methodology for visits etc.) and establishing themselves in the broader societal context (e.g. ensuring the authorities’ awareness of their mandate and visibility to the public). As state institutions, set up by law, NPMs are not regularly confronted with questions of impact and effectiveness. At least in EU countries, NPMs do not normally depend on donors/ external funding agencies from where impetus for evaluation has arisen in other areas. Formal working procedures, including regarding follow-up to recommendations, dominate, particularly where Ombuds institutions have been designated as NPMs; with long standing working procedures and being accustomed to a reactive and legalistic approach. However, after almost a decade of NPM practice, the demands for accountability and for strengthening the effectiveness of the NPM’s work are increasing, both internally and externally. The 2014 Regional Forum on the OPCAT in Latin America, where participants from 17 countries from the region participated with a view to strengthening the effectiveness of preventive bodies, put it this way: ‘One of the main challenges faced by torture prevention mechanisms is ensuring that their recommendations are implemented and lead to real changes in the practice of deprivation of liberty. Impact obviously constitutes the litmus test - 88 -