Part II: Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation Introduction The OPCAT is clear on the aim NPMs are to achieve: ‘improving the treatment and the conditions of the persons deprived of their liberty and to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. The NPM should not only regularly visit places of detention and make recommendations to the relevant authorities but also ‘submit proposals and observations concerning existing or draft legislation’.115 While the OPCAT, in relation to follow-up to recommendations, puts a focus on the dialogue with the state, the SPT specifies in its ‘Analytical self-assessment tool’ that the follow-up should also include a dialogue with ‘other relevant national and international actors, including civil society’.116 (See Part II, Chapter 2) The present Part illustrates good practices of follow-up and the challenges met by NPMs in that regard. The text boxes at the beginning of each section are intended to give a concise summary of the different categories of tools, pointing out good practices as well as the challenges met by NPMs in the followup processes. This Part can only provide an overview and an initial analysis of the tools used by NPMs. Their applicability and value depends on the specific context in which each NPM operates and would thus require further specific and in-depth research and analysis. In this regard this Part is primarily intended as an inspiration for NPMs to develop their own methods and an invitation for further reflections and exchange. The research and consultations within this Project have shown that most NPMs have not reflected much on how they do follow-up while recognising that this would be useful to enhance their impact. Most follow-up tools move along familiar paths of the explicit mandate of NPMs as set out in the OPCAT: visits to places of detention and the written dialogue with the authorities surrounding the reporting process. Beyond that, the dialogue with the competent authorities as well as other actors is rarely institutionalised. Especially with actors other than the competent authorities there are often no sustainable lines of communication and cooperation, and when there is a dialogue this has rarely a special focus on follow-up and implementation of recommendations. The publicity work of most NPMs often does not go beyond the publication of (annual) reports and reacting towards relevant developments, as there is mostly no communication plans for the NPMs. Overall, NPMs in the EU spend relatively little resources on follow-up and the tools used are not part of a comprehensive follow-up strategy. There are concerns in regard to the resources required for effective follow-up and sometimes reluctance in view of the effectiveness of an increased interaction with the relevant stakeholders and its implications on the (perceived) independence and impartiality of the NPM. 1. Dialogue with the competent authorities ‘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.’ 117 œœ Obligation to dialogue The OPCAT expressly prescribes a duty for the state and NPM to establish a dialogue on implementation. In some countries this has been transposed in national law, in the founding instrument or other legislative document concerning the mandate of the respective NPMs. For example, in the UK multiple NPM structure there are legislative provisions for particular state authorities to respond to NPM recommendations. Thus in England and Wales the local policing bodies118 must prepare comments and invite the Chief Constable to submit comments on the published report of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC). The Art 19 OPCAT. See e.g. SPT, ‘Self-assessment matrix for National Preventive Mechanisms’ <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ HRBodies/OPCAT/NPMSelf_assessmentmatrixEN.doc> [hereinafter: SPT, Self-assessment matrix]. 117 Art 22 OPCAT. 118 Namely, the Police and Crime Commissioner, or the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, British Transport Police Authority, City of London Police Authority as appropriate. 115 116 - 46 -