Part I: Basis for an effective follow-up tries to be short, clear and specific in its recommendations. The NPMs from the Netherlands and Estonia both emphasised the need for factual and precise recommendations, as a basis for being perceived as a trustworthy actor that has relevant valuable expertise on the subject. The Slovenian NPM underlined that it always makes sure its recommendations are reasonable in the sense that it will be possible to check its realisation, as well as pointing out the necessity of taking structural and systemic problems into account when drafting recommendations in order to convey to the authorities an in-depth understanding of the problem. Furthermore, the manner in which the recommendation is written has also been identified as a relevant factor when considering follow-up. The phrasing of the recommendations should be adapted to the urgency required for its implementation. It should be kept in mind that formulations and tone have an impact on the way targeted actors perceive them and are then willing to implement them. Therefore to whom the recommendation is addressed needs also to be considered: recommendations for personnel in places of detention may need to be formulated in a different way than, for example, recommendations addressed to a relevant ministry or government department. In order to be persuasive, the Czech NPM hired an ‘argumentation and negotiation expert’ to consult on its reports and recommendations. Meetings with this expert do not take place regularly but have been held a few times. One of the outcomes was the adaption of the language of reports and recommendations to the recipients, who are often not lawyers. Thus less legal language is now used by the NPM in order to enable those who shall implement recommendations to have a clear understanding of what they actually require. There was also rather broad agreement that due consideration should also be given in the recommendations to staff conditions of work in places of detention. The Slovenian NPM, for example, tries, to the extent possible, to draft recommendations that can benefit the authorities as well, while at the same time keeping up the approach of a ‘critical friend’. Some NPMs recognised that they have issued contradictory recommendations over the years, which prompted a reflection over the consistency and the long-term changes and the values an NPM wants to promote. In the framework of this Project no clear-cut consensus could be found in the consultations with the NPMs on how to deal with substantive changes in recommendations, although most NPMs agreed that a sound justification for the recommendation was necessary in such cases. An up to date database can obviously assist in ensuring consistency of the recommendations issued not only in relation to specific places of detention but also across different institutions. The idea to create templates/procedure for recommendations in order to apply the double-SMART criteria more systematically was also raised as a possibility by the NPM of Malta, and seen as a way to increase the quality and the coherence of recommendations. When the report and recommendations are being drafted, it was recommended that time should be set aside for reflection on successful approaches and on how to develop/think of new strategies that could have a stronger impact on the situation. The NPM could thus periodically reflect on the impact of its recommendations, based on their being recorded in a systematic and standardised manner, to analyse the reasons for partial or non-implementation. The SPT in its Guidelines, for example, recommends that ‘The NPM, its members and its staff should be required to regularly review their working methods and undertake training in order to enhance their ability to exercise their responsibilities under the Optional Protocol’.86 Indeed this is also now included in the ‘Analytical self-assessment tool’ which some NPMs have been using.87 86 87 SPT, UN Doc CAT/OP/12/5, para 31. SPT, UN Doc CAT/OP/1. - 37 -