Part I: Basis for an effective follow-up and observations, as well as actively encourages and fosters the implementation of its recommendations in a number of different ways. The purpose of ‘follow-up’ is often closely associated with the concepts of ‘implementation’ and ‘compliance’, and ‘follow-up’ is frequently understood to be a means not only to monitor but to secure, or at least, facilitate, ‘implementation’ and ‘compliance’. This raises questions as to what is meant by ‘implementation’ and ‘compliance’ and whose responsibility is it to monitor them? The terms ‘implementation’ and ‘compliance’ are often used interchangeably and/or inconsistently by various actors, including torture monitoring bodies. For example, some bodies speak of ‘compliance’ with their recommendations whereas others may refer to the ‘implementation’ of their recommendations. Although there is undoubtedly a close nexus between ‘implementation’ and ‘compliance’, they are distinct concepts. For the purposes of this research ‘implementation’ can be understood as the process by which states, their authorities and agencies, take steps to address recommendations of torture monitoring bodies. ‘Compliance’ on the other hand is arguably a broader concept, and relates to whether state practice in fact matches international norms and standards. Notwithstanding these formal, complex definitions, in practice it is noted that these terms are often used interchangeably, while the objective is commonly understood to be monitoring whether there has been any action taken on a recommendation. 2.3 Who should follow-up recommendations? States bear the primary responsibility for implementation and compliance with international human rights standards. The OPCAT was developed specifically as a means to assist states parties to the UN Convention against Torture (CAT) to implement their obligation to prevent torture and other ill-treatment,20 and the requirement for states parties to put in place an independent and functioning NPM is designed to be a practical step towards fulfilling this obligation. In order to effectively prevent torture and other illtreatment the OPCAT establishes a triangular relationship between the state party, its NPM and the SPT through a series of obligations and corresponding duties.21 Thus the OPCAT envisages a role for NPMs in monitoring and facilitating implementation and compliance by states parties with their obligation to prevent torture and other ill-treatment. NPMs, as preventive bodies, have a broad mandate which ‘includes influencing, monitoring, training, and assistance that can be part of bringing about change in the systems in which torture, ill treatment, and discrimination takes place.’22 One can identify at least three elements ‘necessary for contributing to systemic change: 1) understanding the detention system, 2) improving the detention system through assistance and support, and 3) working on the context in which the detention system exists, including legal systems, services, and behaviors’.23 At the workshops held in the framework of this Project, NPMs generally considered that they have a responsibility to follow-up and monitor the steps taken to implement their recommendations and observations. Indeed, article 22 OPCAT implies that the NPM will have at least some role, by requiring that ‘the competent authorities of the state party concerned shall examine the recommendations of the national preventive mechanism and enter into a dialogue with it on possible implementation measures’ (emphasis added). However, the consultations held in the framework of this Project found that the exact extent of this role is very much open to debate. Many we spoke to argued that follow-up should not be Art 2(1) CAT. See APT and Inter-American Institute for Human Rights (IIHR), Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture: Implementation Manual (rev edn, APT 2010) 14 [hereinafter: APT and IIHR, Implementation Manual (2010)] 22 M Werntz, ‘Keynote Address: The Impact of Visiting Mechanisms in Torture Prevention’ (Enhancing Visits to Places of Detention: Promoting Collaboration. Proceedings of a Conference Presented by American University Washington College of Law and the Association for the Prevention of Torture, March 18, 2011) <http://www.apt.ch/content/files_res/vol-18issue-4-spring-2011-special-edition.pdf>.. 23 Ibid. 20 21 - 23 -