Part II: Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation policing bodies are also responsible for publishing these comments as they think ‘appropriate’ and for sending a copy of their comments to the Secretary of State.119 Similarly, in many other countries such as Austria,120 Estonia121, France,122 Germany,123 Malta124 and Slovenia125 the authorities are required in domestic law to respond to the recommendations within a stated timeframe or a ‘suitable period’ (Germany). In Bulgaria, the timeframe specifies that the authorities notify the Ombudsman within one month of any action taken to address the recommendations; for Portugal it is 60 days,126 although for urgent matters the timeframe is 10 days.127 Although the legal obligation to consider the recommendations of the NPM and enter into a dialogue with it on implementation measures does not guarantee implementation, it nevertheless appears to be a good basis for any follow-up. It can ensure that the authorities have a duty to consider and respond to the recommendations and the NPMs have a clear legal basis to demand discussions on implementation measures with them.128 Having a specific time frame in which to respond can also prove useful in prompting a reply from the authorities. Moreover, and as recommended by the APT, the law should include that the NPM has the right to determine which authority it will address its recommendations to.129 Some NPMs have the possibility to ‘escalate’ the dialogue to higher authorities in the event that there is a failure to engage in a meaningful discussion on implementation or failure to implement. For example the Ombudsman Statute of Portugal affirms that: ‘If recommendations are not complied with, and whenever the assistance requested is not forthcoming, the Ombudsman may address the competent superior or, should it be the case, to the supervising minister‘.130 Similarly, the NPMs of Poland (Human Rights Defender) and Malta involve the higher authority level when a visited institution neither implements the recommendation nor provides for a reasonable justification. However, the extent to which such powers can be utilised by the NPMs is not always clear. Some member visiting bodies of the UK NPM have employed a specific process whereby the issue is escalated through senior levels.131 The research and consultations within this Project have shown that many NPMs have not or have only just recently started strategic reflections on how to conduct the follow-up process. However, NPMs are already using a number of different tools, which will be examined in the Chapters below. œœ Principles on dialogue While the OPCAT does not specify on how and with whom the dialogue should be held, the SPT formulates some principles for the dialogue with the state in its ‘Analytical self-assessment tool’: • the NPM ‘should maintain a dialogue with both governmental authorities and institution directors/ managers regarding the implementation of recommendations’132 UK, Police Act 1996, section 55(2). Austria, Law of the Austrian Ombudsman Board, art 148(c); Croatia, Ombudsman Act, art 8(3). 121 Estonia, Chancellor of Justice Act, arts 28 and 35(2). 122 France, Act of the General Controller, art 5. 123 Germany, State treaty, art 2(3). 124 Malta, Prison Regulations, art 108(2); Malta, Board of Visitors for Detained Persons Regulations, art 7(2). 125 Slovenia, Ombudsman Act, art 7. 126 Portugal, Ombudsman Statute, art 38(2), which states that ‘The body to which a recommendation is addressed shall, within sixty days upon its receipt, inform the Ombudsman of its position on the issue. 127 Portugal, Ombudsman Statute, art 29(4), which states that ‘The Ombudsman may stipulate, in writing, a time limit of no less than 10 days for the fulfilment of an urgent request’. 128 APT and IIHR, Implementation Manual (2010) 101. 129 Ibid 102; see also APT, Monitoring Police Custody: A practical guide (2013) 87 [hereinafter: APT, Monitoring Police Custody (2013)]. 130 Portugal, Ombudsman Statute, art 38(4). 131 See e.g. Northern Ireland Policing Board, Annual Report and Accounts for the Period of 1 April 2012 – 31 March 2013, Belfast (2013) 69. The HMIP Scotland can escalate matters to SPS Chief Executive or if required to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, and the HMIP for England and Wales can also escalate matters to the Ministry of Justice, UK NPM Recommendations Survey. The RQIA has also developed an Escalation Policy and Procedure and can escalate serious concerns to a Trust’s Chief Executive should the inspector find any significant risk to health, safety and care of patients / service users, see RQIA Escalation Policy and Procedure (2013). 132 SPT, UN Doc CAT/OP/1, para 22. - 47 119 120