Part I: Basis for an effective follow-up the sole responsibility of the NPM, but ideally there should be a ‘collaborative follow-up process’, whereby the NPM works in cooperation with the state and non-state actors, and there was some consensus on the list of who these actors should be (Parliament, judiciary, civil society, media, etc.). Who should lead on this process of follow-up, however, is subject to some difference of opinion. The majority of NPMs consulted considered this should be the NPM itself, it being the one issuing the recommendations and because it enabled the NPM itself to evaluate the impact of its own work. Our conclusions would be that an NPM must play a leading role in follow-up, but that it should not be the sole actor involved. Who else should engage with it, and whether the NPM should lead the process, is dependent on the context of the particular state. But having a clear strategy on follow-up which involves a range of actors would be important and this strategy is something that the NPM itself will have to determine in collaboration with others. Furthermore, whatever role the NPM does play in follow-up, it needs to be provided with sufficient financial and human resources to do so.24 At the very least the NPM needs to be able to ‘enter into a dialogue’ with the ‘competent authorities’ of the state ‘on possible implementation measures’.25 Who are the ‘competent authorities’ will depend on the nature of the recommendation and who is best placed to address the issue of concern effectively. What that follow-up role should entail is also debatable. The role of the NPM with regard to followup to recommendations in practice goes beyond the visiting of institutions, and encompasses a number of different activities with regard to making sure its recommendations are implemented. How far this advisory or assistance role goes is subject to debate. The extent to which the NPM should provide practical advice to the authorities on how to implement the recommendations is not always clear, and NPMs vary in their approach in this regard, as it will be outlined in more detail in Part I, Chapter 4.2. In addition, several NPMs, for example, have expressed uneasiness when asked whether they do ‘advocacy’ in order to foster the implementation of their recommendations, probably because ‘advocacy’ is often rather understood as ‘campaigning’, something NGOs engage in. Advocacy can however be defined as ‘public support for or recommendation of a particular cause or policy’26 and might be helpful when describing the NPM’s role in the follow-up process, as it delineates, albeit broadly, what activities NPMs engage in, e.g. when involving Parliament or the media. 2.4 Whose recommendations? A further issue that has arisen is the extent to which NPMs should also follow-up on recommendations made by other bodies, such as the SPT and CPT. The SPT ‘Guidelines on national preventive mechanisms’ (hereinafter: Guidelines) expressly states that NPMs should ‘[…] actively seek to follow-up on the implementation of any recommendations which the SPT has made in relation to the country in question, liaising with the SPT when doing so.’27 On the one hand, this makes sense: the OPCAT envisages NPMs acting as a bridge between the international and national levels,28 noting that ‘having an effective, fully independent and properly resourced NPM could greatly contribute to efforts’ to follow-up.29 Where the SPT has made an NPM advisory visit, and in the context of its other visits, recommendations will often be directed towards the NPM itself. On the other hand, however, the extent to which NPMs can follow-up on recommendations made by the SPT is constrained by the fact that the state determines whether it will publish the SPT report.30 For the SPT the opportunities to obtain information against which to check 24 27 25 26 30 28 29 - 24 - See Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT) ‘Analytical self-assessment tool for National Preventive Mechanisms: A preliminary guide by the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture regarding the functioning of an NPM’ (6 February 2012) UN Doc CAT/OP/1, para 2 [hereinafter: SPT, UN Doc CAT/OP/1]. See art 22 OPCAT. See Oxford Dictionary. Available: <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/advocacy>. SPT ‘Guidelines on national preventive mechanisms’ (9 December 2010) UN Doc CAT/OP/12/5, para 38 [hereinafter: SPT, UN Doc CAT/OP/12/5]. See e.g. art 20(f) OPCAT. SPT ‘Replies by Brazil to the first response of the Subcommittee’ (31 March 2014) UN Doc CAT/OP/BRA/2/Add.1, para 21. See art 16 OPCAT.