Part I: Basis for an effective follow-up reports it was easier to capture public attention on a topic, which in turn proved beneficial with regard to the implementation of recommendations. For example, the Bulgarian NPM (Ombudsman of the Republic of Bulgaria) has issued two thematic reports, one on the situation of Syrian refugees and one on special institutions for children. The preparation of these reports was decided due to the concerning information gathered by the NPM and increased public attention on these issues. According to the Bulgarian NPM, issuing a thematic report in these situations had greater impact, as it was easier to reach the media, civil society and the general public. The French NPM publishes ‘opinions’ on specific issues in the Official Gazette.78 For example, in 2011 an opinion on the use of phones or on the exercise of religion in places of deprivation of liberty was issued. The French NPM confirmed that the opinion gives them the opportunity to address general problems and have a wider look at a situation. Since such reports are not published every day, they receive considerable media attention. Furthermore, it is argued that publishing opinions in the Official Gazette bolsters awareness of the NPM’s findings and thus potentially opens up a concrete possibility for the NPM to introduce policy proposals or put topics of concern on the political agenda. On the other hand the publication in the Official Gazette, being the traditional mechanism for communications by state authorities, could be seen as undermining the independence of the NPM. The French NPM also published a collection of its opinions and recommendations in cooperation with APT.79 The Croatian NPM (Ombudsperson’s Office) underlined that special thematic reports can serve to identify structural causes that go beyond what is possible in individual visit reports. The Czech NPM, after a series of visits to similar facilities, drafts a report that contains the most frequent misconducts, highlights general findings, structural causes and includes recommendations to the responsible authorities. 4.2 Drafting of effective recommendations as a basis for follow-up action The OPCAT stipulates that NPMs have the power: ‘to make recommendations to the relevant authorities with the aim of improving the treatment and the conditions of the persons deprived of their liberty and to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, taking into consideration the relevant norms of the United Nations’ and ‘to submit proposals and observations concerning existing or draft legislation’80 The recommendations of monitoring bodies have been said to ‘lie at the heart of the preventive approach’.81 According to the SPT, they ‘play a critical role in effective prevention and will touch on a wide variety of issues, including matters relating to physical conditions, the reasons for, and levels of, occupancy and the provision of, and access to, a wide range of facilities and services.82 The SPT clarified that their purpose ‘is not only to bring about compliance with international obligations and standards but to offer practical advice and suggestions as to how to reduce the likelihood or risk of torture or ill-treatment occurring and will be firmly based on, and informed by, the facts found and circumstances encountered during the visits undertaken.’ While they need to be tailored to the given circumstances and focused, the SPT stated that ‘there is no logical limit to the range of issues that, if explored, might have a preventive impact.’83 The formulation in the OPCAT is clear in the sense that recommendations issued to the authorities have a concrete goal: the effective improvement of the situation of persons in deprivation of liberty and the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment. Recommendations therefore can address specific problems identified in a particular establishment through the course of a visit, however they can also raise concerns regarding systemic issues that need to be tackled at a higher level. As mentioned above, NPMs consulted in the framework of this Project have underlined the importance of effective recommendations as a basis For the opinions, see the French NPM’s website <http://www.cglpl.fr/en/presentation/>. APT and General Controller of Places of Deprivation of Liberty, Opinions and Recommendations of the French ‚Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté‘ 2008 – 2014 (2014). 80 Art 19(b) and (c) OPCAT. 81 APT and CoE, New partnerships for torture prevention in Europe (2010). 82 SPT, UN Doc CAT/OP/12/6, para 5(d). 83 Ibid para 5(f). 78 79 - 35 -