Part II: Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation 2. Communication and cooperation with other actors As noted at the start of this Study, cooperation and dialogue are basic principles underpinning any followup and monitoring of the implementation of NPM recommendations. In addition to establishing and maintaining a constructive dialogue with relevant state authorities, as discussed in Part II, Chapter 1, the process of follow-up and implementation of recommendations can be strengthened by establishing a dialogue and cooperation with a range of other actors at the national, regional and international levels. The SPT explicitly recommends that ‘[t]he NPM should maintain a dialogue with other relevant national and international actors, including civil society and consider all relevant information received from them.’184 Moreover, the SPT states that an ‘NPM should establish sustainable lines of communication […] with other relevant national and international actors in the field of prevention of torture, including the SPT, and with civil society organisations’ and ‘establish a strategy for cooperation with other national and international actors, including the SPT, on prevention of torture and on follow-up of cases of suspected or documented torture or ill-treatment’.185 Our research identified that developing a relationship with national actors such as members of Parliament, professional bodies, CSOs, and the media can help to strengthen follow-up and encourage implementation, although there was no consistent practice among the NPMs for working with these actors. Similarly, good lines of communication between the NPM and other NPMs, as well as relevant international and regional bodies, such as the SPT and CPT, can also assist the process of follow-up and the sharing of good practice. Thus, many considered that NPMs should be flexible and inventive regarding their communication and cooperation with other actors. It is considered useful to strategically identify the stakeholders relevant for the follow-up to its recommendations and establish various channels of communication, coordination and possibly even cooperation with them. 2.1 Interaction with Parliament Parliament is an important partner for the NPM that can help generate greater visibility of its findings and promote the implementation of its recommendations. Most NPMs interact in one way or another with their national Parliament. Most common is the presentation of annual reports, while a few NPMs can even bring specific issues of implementation to the attention of the Parliament. Some NPMs had positive experiences with exchanging information as well as discussing specific issues in specialised committees (e.g. on human rights, prisons, health care etc.). Additionally, interaction with parliamentary groups and individual MPs may be useful for follow-up to recommendations. As it is not always easy to identify the right contact points, a thorough analysis and documentation of stakeholders is advisable. However, while regular interaction with Parliament is important, it should be informed by a clear strategy. Caution should be exercised in view of potential political influencing with the objective of maintaining a position of an independent and neutral actor. Parliament was identified as an important partner for NPMs and can support the implementation of recommendations by setting relevant topics on the political agenda, influencing public opinion, holding authorities to account, developing policies, and passing the necessary laws. Nevertheless, the discussions and consultations held in the framework of this Project indicated that there was no consistent approach for engaging with members of Parliament and the extent to which NPMs were able to establish a constructive dialogue with Parliament varied considerably among NPMs. This may depend in part on the composition of the NPM: if the head of the NPM has held a political role in the past, for example, this may impact negatively or positively on its ability to interact with Parliament and Parliamentarians. SPT, UN Doc CAT/OP/1, para 23. Ibid paras 30–32. 184 185 - 65 -