Part II: Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation A range of approaches can be observed; typically it was observed that NPMs carried out follow-up activities as part of a ‘regular’ visit i.e. it was not expressly classified as a ‘follow-up’ visit and there are no discernible changes in the visiting methodology. However, some NPMs carry out specific ‘follow-up visits’ in order to directly follow-up on previous observations and recommendations, with different purposes. œœ Specific visits to mitigate risks and assess implementation In the UK, some of the bodies in the NPM undertake unannounced visits on the basis of a risk assessment.139 For example the HMIP undertakes full follow-up inspections for ‘those establishments that are deemed “high risk” on the basis of their previous healthy prison assessments and any further intelligence’, where the follow-up visit focuses on all the recommendations made in the previous visit and looks again at the areas most at risk.140 In addition, there are short follow-up inspections which are done in ‘low-risk’ institutions and which look at the progress made on recommendations in the last report.141 For other bodies in the UK NPM structure some of the follow-up visits may be focused on thematic areas.142 Similarly, the Austrian NPM carries out regular follow-up visits, specifically to those places where there are a greater number of detainees. Likewise, one body of the Dutch NPM automatically revisits an establishment one year after a visit, although it can also carry out ad hoc visits if it considers this to be necessary. The procedures of NPMs governing the follow-up visits vary, for example the visiting plans of the Bulgarian NPM is based around the previous report’s conclusions and the timeframe between initial visit and follow-up visit of approximately one year. The report of the follow-up visit may therefore include conclusions on the extent to which the previous recommendations have been complied with. œœ Specific visits to follow-up irregularities Other NPMs undertake specific ‘follow-up’ visits, outside of their ‘regular’ visits, only when serious concerns have been raised. The German NPM carries out follow-up visits where there have been particularly negative findings in visited facilities. The focus of these follow-up visits is exclusively on aspects which were identified in the recommendations issued after the previous visit.143 Similarly, the Slovenian NPM stated that it carries out a control visit when it is reasonable to check the implementation of the NPM recommendations aimed at eliminating irregularities. The French NPM reported that the prevalence of complaints from a particular establishment may be a factor in deciding to do a follow-up visit. For the Croatian NPM follow-up visits are expressly provided for in the law. Article 8 of the Act on NPM stipulates: ‘[u]pon the delivery of the report, the persons taking part in the activities of the National Preventive Mechanism are authorised to carry out a control examination of the place or institution where the cases of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment were found.’ In practice, many of the consulted NPMs stated that their capacity to conduct regular follow-up visits is often limited, particularly where there are a large number of institutions to be visited. As a result, followup visits may only take place to a few institutions. Engagement and collaboration with other organisations that are present regularly in places of detention or who also carry out visits may help to alleviate these challenges. œœ Using regular visits and direct talks to assess and promote implementation Several NPMs have emphasised that every visit provides an opportunity to follow-up and promote the implementation of recommendations. As the HMIP in the UK has noted, ‘every inspection following up a UK, HMIP, Inspection Manual (2008) 59. Ibid. 141 Ibid, 63. 142 E.g. UK, Her Majesty‘s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland (HMICS), Programmed Work Plan for the Fiscal Year 2013-2014 (2013) 4. 143 SPT ‘Replies of the national preventive mechanism of the Federal Republic of Germany to the recommendations and requests for information made by the SPT’ (18 February 2014) UN Doc CAT/OP/DEU/2/Add.1, para 50. 139 140 - 49 -