Part II: Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation In its 22nd General Report, the CPT describes the relationship with NPMs as ‘united in our goals, distinct in our roles’.222 The CPT bases its cooperation with NPMs largely on its perception of each NPM, its independence and effectiveness.223 It generally uses its own ‘measuring rods’ and does not generally follow-up NPM recommendations. However, the CPT has emphasised the importance of coherent standards and methods for the prevention of torture, and the need to avoid diverging approaches that could undermine the work of both the CPT and NPMs. For that purpose, the CPT has increased its interaction with NPMs over recent years, e.g. through participation at national and international events and expressed its commitment to continue to support the work of NPMs. While NPMs can provide valuable information to the CPT before and during a visit – e.g. on the situation in detention and which places to visit – the exchange of information from the CPT to NPMs is limited by the principle of confidentiality. However, a CPT visit can be very useful for the NPM to raise its concerns. If the state authorities agree, the NPM can take part in the CPT delegation’s meetings with the authorities, especially the final meeting, to promote its recommendations and increase the visibility of its work. The CPT can further take up the concerns and recommendations of the NPM in its visit report. Moreover, NPMs are seen to be ideally placed to follow-up the CPT visits and monitor the implementation of its recommendations. This can of course only be effectuated once the NPM is fully informed of the CPT’s findings and recommendations. Thus, the CPT recommends that – despite the confidentiality principle – states should submit the visit report to the NPM without delay.224 In the workshops most NPMs stated that they have met the CPT during its visit and have found the interaction very useful. They have also said that they follow-up on the recommendations of the CPT and use CPT recommendations and standards in their reports, recommendations, and follow-up work. Moreover, NPM participants emphasised that the ‘CPT Standards’225 have become a very important source of information and point of reference which they used in their daily work and in emphasising their recommendations. At the same time, some have expressed that the meaning and scope of the Standards are not always clear and that additional CPT guidance in this respect would be very helpful. The CPT stressed that NPMs could get in contact with desk officers at the CPT Secretariat for information and guidance. However, it was confirmed by the CPT in the workshops and consultations that there is no uniform strategy for cooperation with NPMs but it rather depends on the circumstances in each country and the effectiveness of the respective NPM. Moreover, it was stated that so far there is a lack of systematic and structured follow-up to the CPT’s recommendations by the CPT itself, which is currently under consideration. Overall, there are evident synergies between the work of the CPT and NPMs and effective coordination and cooperation can benefit their work and increase their impact. While contacts have increased over the last years, both the CPT and NPMs appear to lack a clear strategy on how to cooperate most effectively. Thus, the authors of this Study recommend that any strategic approach to follow-up procedures within NPMs should specifically address the communication and cooperation with the CPT and how it can be improved during but also in between the CPT visits. Moreover, as suggested at the Vienna workshop, it would be useful to consider the establishment of a permanent and sustainable line of specific communication with NPMs at the CPT, e.g. in form of a special phone line.226 2.5.4 Cooperation with the EU In recent years the EU has become more active in the area of criminal justice and detention. However, there is a lack of coordination among the different Directorate-Generals. It was suggested that, CPT ‘22nd General Annual Report 1 August 2011 - 31 July 2012‘, CPT/Inf (2012) 25, Strasbourg, 6 November 2012, 15. Ibid 16. 224 Ibid 19. 225 CPT ‘CPT standards’ CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 - Rev. 2015. 226 See Workshop report Vienna/Bristol 2014. 222 223 - 77 -