Part II: Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation recommendations. Some NPMs seemed to deliberately maintain professional distance to ensure their independence. There is still a need for a substantive discussion on how different organisations can contribute to follow-up. œœ Cooperation with professional organisations, research institutions and academia Civil society is understood to encompass not only NGOs but also a whole range of other civil society actors, including professional organisations, such as medical and bar associations, research institutes and universities, that have been identified as having the potential to play a useful role to support the NPM as it monitors the implementation of its recommendations. Some NPMs already maintain good contacts with such organisations. For example the French NPM has signed a number of Memoranda and Agreements with existing institutions over the years, including the Defender of Rights, the National Commission on Information Technology and Liberties and the National Council of Doctors. In addition, contacts with professional unions and bar associations are regularly maintained and further developed. Through these contacts the NPM obtains useful information and can furthermore explain its recommendations. The Estonian NPM also meets the bar association once a year to discuss different topics related to the NPM’s mandate (e.g. about state legal aid to persons in psychiatric care). The Slovenian Ombudsman holds talks with representatives of professional unions in the framework of visits in order to hear about their concerns. Moreover, in the past they have addressed a question of treatment to the Extended Professional Board for Psychiatry and received an answer that was used to specify the NPM’s position. The German NPM noted that it has had positive experiences cooperating with researchers, e.g. in the field of juvenile detention, to exchange opinions and also received support on commenting on and interpreting legislation. A recent expert conference on human rights in detention carried out with the Centre for Criminology has brought to light common interests and a potential for increasing cooperation. According to the German NPM, also a strengthening of cooperation with the German Bar Association and the General Medical Council is seen as useful and worth exploring. In Austria, the coordinators of two visiting commissions of the NPM have their offices located within the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights, allowing for the permanent contact and communication with other torture prevention experts.210 œœ Institutionalised cooperation with civil society The Hungarian Ombudsman is legally obliged to ‘cooperate with organisations and national institutions aiming at the promotion of the protection of fundamental rights’.211 Thus, with the designation as the NPM it has also established a Civil Consultative Body (CCB) to assist it in carrying out its duties.212 The CCB is composed only of civil society, i.e. of four professional organisations (Medical Chamber, Psychiatric Association, Dietetic Association, Bar Association) and four selected NGOs aimed at protecting the rights of persons deprived of their liberty. They meet at least twice a year and have the mandate to suggest inspection priorities, visits, the involvement of external experts and comment on the working methods, reports, materials and publications as well as the training plan of the NPM.213 Although the recently established CCB has not yet done it, it would in principle also be possible to deal with issues of follow-up to recommendations. For more information see <http://bim.lbg.ac.at/en/assistance-commissions-austrian-ombudsmen-board-officecommission-4-and-5>. 211 Hungary, Act on the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights, section 2(5). 212 Hungary, Commissioner for Fundamental Rights, Directive 3/2014 of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights on the establishment and rules of procedure of the Civil Consultative Body assisting the National Preventive Mechanism in carrying out its duties. 213 See Hungary, Civil Consultative Body Directive, section 6. 210 - 72 -