Part I: Basis for an effective follow-up for follow-up action. Obviously, there are a number of factors that will have an influence on the extent to which recommendations are able to be accepted and implemented in practice e.g. the quality of a response from the state will in part be determined by the precision of the recommendation to which it relates, as well as the extent to which it may be realistic and contextual. The APT’s double-SMART criteria for drafting effective recommendations are of interest in this regard. 4.2.1 APT’s double-SMART criteria Guidance on how monitoring bodies should draft their recommendations can be increasingly found both in NPM practice as well as practical orientation papers that organisations specialised in this area have produced. The ‘double-SMART’ model developed by the APT has been of particular relevance in this field.84 The criteria stipulated in this model call for a broad and holistic perspective, that takes into account a range of dimensions including the actual root causes, whether social, psychological, political, institutional or historical. There is a balance to be made, however, in the drafting of recommendations between, on the one hand, understanding the bigger picture and identifying the systemic flaws that need to be addressed from a longer time perspective, and, on the other hand, being pragmatic and realistic. The double-SMART criteria proposed by the APT encompasses important elements that should be considered at the time of drafting, even though it may not be possible to include all ten of them in each recommendation. During the consultations with NPMs, it was observed that, while most were aware of the existence of these criteria and some may keep these criteria in mind, NPMs do not systematically apply them in the drafting process. The different SMART elements as set out by APT are the following: • • • • • Specific Measurable Achievable Results-oriented Time-bound • • • • • Solution-suggestive Mindful of prioritisation, sequencing & risks Argued Root-cause responsive Targeted 4.2.2 Practical reflections of NPMs regarding drafting of recommendations In the consultations held in the framework of the Project, NPMs in the EU have highlighted a number of relevant practices with regard to drafting recommendations that they consider relevant in order to provide an effective basis for follow-up. Some of them should be highlighted as follows. General considerations The UK NPM’s own survey on its members ‘recommendations noted that effective recommendations needed to be ‘clear, unambiguous, achievable and realistic.’85 The Dutch NPM confirmed, that it always APT, Making effective recommendations, Detention Monitoring Briefings, Briefing N° 1 (2008) [hereinafter: APT, Making effective recommendations (2008)]. 85 UK, NPM, Making Recommendations: A core NPM function. What makes for a good recommendation and how can the NPM follow-up on them most effectively? (2014) para 5 [hereinafter: UK, NPM, Making Recommendations (2014)]. 84 - 36 -