Part I: Basis for an effective follow-up The extent to which this elaborate package of tools has actually improved implementation of recommendations has not been extensively and comprehensively studied. Yet, although there is no comparable example in the EU, elements of these tools can be found in the practices of some of the NPMs in this region, such as the use of tables and/or scales to illustrate any changes in practice, agreeing or setting timelines for measures to be taken, and systematic data management and the centralisation of information on recommendations. For example, one of the bodies of the UK NPM, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate for Prisons for England and Wales (HMIP), carries out inspections on the basis of published criteria known as ‘expectations’. Each expectation describes the standards of treatment and conditions an establishment is expected to achieve. These are underpinned by a series of ‘indicators’ which describe the evidence that will normally indicate to inspectors whether the outcome is likely to have been achieved or not. However, the list of indicators is not exhaustive and does not prevent an establishment demonstrating that the expectation has been met in other ways.38 Yet, at the end of the day whether a monitoring body such as an NPM considers an authority to have implemented its recommendation may be just as much to do with making a judgment call, based on a multidisciplinary approach, its own experience and knowledge of the context and engaging with various experts, than any simplistic categorisation can hope to capture. Categorising implementation When assessing implementation of the recommendations our research found that NPMs differed in terms of the categories they used. Some examples included: ̵̵ ‘implemented/implemented to a large extent/ largely not implemented to a large extent/ not implemented’;39 ̵̵ ‘executed/non-executed/non-executed due to lack of funds/non-executed due to lack of buildings/lack of response (information)’;40 ̵̵ ‘achieved/not achieved/partially achieved/no longer relevant/not inspected’.41 In the UK some members of the NPM use percentages in relation to the level of implementation of recommendations.42 Parallels can be drawn from the monitoring and follow-up process developed by some human rights treaty bodies. Where they have undertaken these tasks, they have tended to use categories such as ‘full/partial/pending’,43 or ‘satisfactory/partially satisfactory/not satisfactory/failure to comply’44 in their measurements. On the one hand it is arguable that implementation and compliance cannot be measured through such crude classifications. Often the information provided by these bodies does not reveal the detail on how these treaty bodies reach these conclusions. On the other hand, such categorisations can give an easy and efficient tool to identify key areas that perhaps need to be prioritised or any underlying trends. As a visual aid to highlight the status of issues for recipients of the report, the Dutch NPM uses color-codes (green, light green, orange, red) in its reports for the ten regions in the country in order to convey in a user-friendly manner whether or not there is compliance with existing standards regarding access to a See UK, HMIP, Inspection Framework (2014) paras 2.21–25. Austria, Human Rights Advisory Board, Bericht des Menschenrechtsbeirates über seine Tätigkeit im Jahr 2011 (Ministry of Interior 2012). 40 Bulgaria, Ombudsman of the Republic of Bulgaria, Annual Report of the ombudsman as a National Preventive Mechanism on the inspections conducted in the detention facilities in 2012. 41 E.g. UK, HMIP, Inspection Manual (2008). 42 E.g. see UK, Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland (MWCS), Annual Report 2012-2013 (2013) 10, where it is reported that: ‘93% of our recommendations have been fully implemented or resulted in significant service improvement’. 43 See e.g. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), Annual Report 2013, section D. 44 E.g. the UN Human Rights Committee, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur for follow-up on concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee (107th session, 11–28 March 2013)’ (30 April 2013) UN Doc CCPR/C/107/2. 38 39 - 26 -