Part I: Basis for an effective follow-up 1. Background: NPM models in the EU The NPMs participating in the present Project represent a diverse group demonstrating the variety of approaches taken by OPCAT state parties to meet their obligation to put in place some form of NPM. Although the majority are bodies that have been carrying out a visiting — and to some extent a preventive role — for a number of years before being designated to take on the NPM mandate,15 a few are newly established bodies.16 In addition, NPMs also have a range of different structures and compositions, some are formed of multiple bodies,17 and some have in-built co-operation structures with civil society,18 whereas others are located in the existing Ombuds institutions.19 The form an NPM takes and the context within which it functions are obvious factors that influence the scope, complexity, and type of follow-up on their recommendations. For example, any strategy, tools and procedure for follow-up that an NPM may require depends in part on whether it is a stand-alone body or one that is part of an organisation, often an Ombudsman, with a broader remit. An NPM operating within a small country with only a handful of places of detention can potentially conduct more frequent follow-up visits to an establishment than an NPM operating in a large country with numerous institutions to monitor. For example, in Malta the Board of Visitors for Detained Persons conducts fortnightly visits to the two detention centres for migrants. Furthermore, the number of relevant stakeholders will be a lot smaller in such countries, leading to a different approach with regard to strategy development. The structure of an NPM and country context will also have an impact on, for example, the number of recommendations being made by particular NPMs and consequently the degree of follow-up required, as well as the manner in which recommendations need to be recorded. For example, a large or multiple body-NPM may need to have a more sophisticated system for the centralisation and dissemination of its recommendations among its staff than a smaller or single-body NPM. Notwithstanding the diversity among the NPMs in terms of their structure, mandate and organisation, some common approaches and trends with respect to follow-up were observable, most notably that revisiting a place of detention, dialogue with state authorities and places of detention, and engagement with other actors, were the primary means of conducting follow-up on recommendations. These will be examined in more detail in Part II below. 2. Primary considerations regarding follow-up and implementation 2.1 What do we mean by ‘recommendations’? The range and type of recommendations issued by the various NPMs vary significantly in terms of content and the time frame and resources that may be required to implement them. Some recommendations may address particular issues observed in a specific place of detention, whereas others may relate more to system-wide problems in the national framework to protect people from torture and other ill-treatment. In addition, the ‘relevant authority’ to whom the recommendations should be addressed will also depend on their content that is to say on whether the decision to implement the change required by the recommendations can be taken at the local or state level. It is acknowledged that there might be particular challenges in following-up and implementing recommendations in respect of places of detention run by private entities, and de facto places of deprivation of liberty. However, the scope of the research did not allow to specifically address these challenges. 2.2 What do we mean by follow-up and implementation? For the purposes of this Project ‘follow-up’ is understood to be the process by which a monitoring body seeks information on measures taken by states and other stakeholders in relation to their recommendations E.g. Estonia, the Netherlands, Portugal and the UK. E.g. France, Germany, Lithuania. 17 E.g. the Netherlands, Malta, the UK and Germany. 18 E.g. Slovenia and Demark. 19 E.g. Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia. 15 16 - 22 -