Part II: Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation • the NPM should ‘establish sustainable lines of communication’ and ‘a mechanism for communicating and cooperating with relevant national authorities on the implementation of recommendations’133 • the dialogue should ‘involve both written and oral exchanges’134 However, there is no specific guidance on how to conduct this dialogue beyond the NPM functions stated in the OPCAT, namely through visiting of places of detention, issuing recommendations and commenting on draft laws and policy.135 It is thus largely left up to each NPM to decide with whom and how to interact following-up its recommendations to ensure their implementation. 1.1 Follow-up visits Visits to places of detention are seen by NPMs as the main tool to follow-up to recommendations. The possibility to verify the actions taken by the authorities by visiting the relevant institutions at any given time is a particular strength of NPMs. There are however different views on what a follow-up visit actually constitutes, how it differs from any other visit and what purpose it serves. Some NPMs carry out specific follow-up or control visits with the sole purpose to address the implementation of recommendations. There are different approaches, for example, they can be used to regularly check the implementation of recommendations, particularly for ‘high risk establishments’ and to follow-up particularly negative or urgent observations and individual cases that necessitate a timely check-up. For other NPMs a follow-up visit is simply a periodic visit, which can play an important role not only to verify implementation but to explain to the authorities the background and importance of the recommendations and discussing how they could be implemented. Most NPMs hold a final meeting with the director of the visited institution after each visit, and many agreed that this opportunity should be used to discuss implementation measures and find prompt and practical solutions for issues under the direct control of the institution. Few NPMs reflect on how the dialogue could be enhanced to contribute to the authorities’ willingness to implement, e.g. through a special workshop. As a fundamental tool for follow-up consideration must be given as to how visits can be better used to assess and promote the implementation of recommendations. While this can be done through periodic visits, it also appears useful to carry out specific and targeted follow-up visits. This can be done without spending significant additional resources and allows NPMs to flexibly and promptly react to concerning developments. Thus it is recommended that NPMs develop the planning, procedure and methodology of visits with a view to strengthening follow-up and facilitate implementation of their recommendations. Our research identified that repeat visits, sometimes specifically called ‘follow-up’ visits, to an establishment are often seen as one of the key tools136 that NPMs use to assess implementation of their recommendations.137 Revisiting a place of detention is a way to observe first-hand the extent to which areas of concern have been addressed and how, and to maintain a constructive dialogue with the administrative authorities and staff. ‘Assurance about implementation can be weak without follow-up work or an inspector re-visiting.’138 Ibid paras 30 and 31. Ibid para 22. 135 See e.g. ibid paras 22-24; and SPT, ‘Self-assessment matrix’. 136 UK, HMIP, Inspection Framework (2014). 137 E.g. Bulgaria, Cyprus, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, the UK, Croatia, Estonia; see also UK, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland (HMIPS), Report on HMP Addiewell Follow-Up Inspection 12-16 June 2012 (2012); UK, Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI), Annual Report and Accounts 2012-2013 (2013) 6; UK, RQIA, Mental Health and Learning Disability: Announced Inspection, Ward J Mater Hospital Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, 21 – 22 May 2013 (2013). 138 UK, NAO, Inspection (2015) para 11. 133 134 - 48 -