Part I: Basis for an effective follow-up accessible way. The use of standard formats for visit reports can help the process of comparing data over a period of time.73 Problems and consequences need to be clearly stated74 and the analysis should aim at identifying the root causes of each problem. Also good practices should be noted and filed for systematic analysis.75 At both workshops held in the framework of this Project, NPM representatives agreed that the length of a monitoring visit is a crucial factor to address structural concerns and retrieving the information necessary for systemic analysis and recommendations. For larger places of detention up to several days may be necessary. We were also told that NPMs need to make strategic decisions on the extent to which systemic issues are highlighted within visit reports. One member of the UK NPM noted that while the NPM does comment on structural issues, such as overcrowding, within a visit report, it does so by focusing on the impact the systemic issue has at that particular institution. The UK NPM further explained that it uses consultations with the government to address the wider structural issues in regard to their consequences for a larger number of institutions. Target audience and strategies for disseminations It is also considered important that visit reports should be issued promptly after the visit with the main aim of producing specific recommendations for change. The primary target audience of visit reports is arguably made up of both the institution directors and governmental authorities, while in most countries the reports are shared also with the general public (see Part II, Chapter 3). Building trust with the authorities and the credibility of the NPM are important factors that we were told have an impact on the ability of the NPM to have an effective dialogue with the authorities on implementation. In this regard, the NPMs we spoke to underscored the need for reports to be accurate and precise in the wording used, differentiating, for example, between what ‘is’ and what is only ‘alleged’ and ‘reported’. The Dutch NPM is also currently looking at different options to make its visit reports more user-friendly, thus increasing awareness of the content of the report especially among staff of the visited institutions expected to implement its recommendations. For example, the NPM has recently decided no longer to print its reports, but is contemplating the use of interactive ‘mind maps’ in order to structure the report in different sections and in an inter-active manner to allow each reader to click on only those parts he/she is interested in. 4.1.3 Thematic or other analytic reports In addition to visit reports some NPMs prepare thematic reports focusing on one or more specific issues. The aim of this type of report is to highlight particular issues and provide a more analytical insight into a problem, identifying root causes as well as systemic changes to be implemented.76 Although the OPCAT does not expressly mention thematic reports, the SPT has acknowledged this possibility in its 2012 Guidelines.77 Obviously, the same considerations discussed above for drafting a good quality visit report should be applied to thematic reports. Those NPMs having published thematic reports and consulted in the framework of the Project have underlined their usefulness for targeted follow-up action. Some NPMs mentioned that with thematic See example of internal visit note, in APT, Monitoring places of detention: A practical guide (2004) 239 [hereinafter: in APT, Monitoring places of detention (2004)]; see also OHCHR ‘Professional Training Series No. 7’ (2001) 155. 74 APT, Monitoring places of detention (2004) 70. 75 SPT, UN Doc CAT/OP/1, para 19. 76 APT, Asia Pacific Forum APF, OHCHR, Preventing Torture: An Operational Guide for National Human Rights Institutions (2010) 91. 77 SPT, UN Doc CAT/OP/1, para 22. 73 - 34 -