Part II: Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation previous full inspection includes an assessment of progress in implementing previous recommendations’.144 The Slovenian NPM stated that, a regular visit will often also constitute a follow-up visit, as the place was visited before. Some NPMs reflected on how to better use the dialogue during visits, i.e. how best to discuss the issues with the staff as well as the director of the institution. Many issues addressed by the NPM are of a practical nature and often can and should be resolved directly by the institution. Moreover, the better informed the authorities are, the greater the likelihood that they will participate in the development of solutions to implement a recommendation. For example, for most NPMs and other monitoring mechanisms it is common that the visiting delegation holds a meeting with the person in charge of the institution at the end of every visit.145 This not only gives the delegation the opportunity to transmit urgent observations and recommendations but also provides for an immediate exchange of views and direct communication with relevant personnel. A frank and cooperative discussion on the preliminary findings and recommendations can further strengthen the trust and cooperation between both sides and makes it possible to directly identify those recommendations which the institution itself can implement (such as displaying leaflets, etc.). In this regard many NPMs suggested that the implementation of recommendations should follow a ‘subsidiarity principle’: the practical issues under the direct control of the staff or the director should be resolved by the institution immediately and only the issues requiring an intervention at a higher level, such as the ministry, should be taken up with the governmental authorities. In terms of the latter, the NPM can offer itself to promote the development of prompt solutions with the higher level administrative authorities. The Portuguese NPM stated that it has achieved numerous changes during visits by directly discussing its recommendations with the staff. Evidently, the longer and more in-depth a visit is, the more opportunities there will be for discussing implementation measures and developing concrete solutions to the problems found. For example, in the Netherlands, visits by the IVENJ can take place over several days during which it is in constant dialogue with the authorities, including on immediate implementation measures. In order to further enhance the dialogue during the visit, the IVENJ currently considers offering the staff presentations of the NPM’s report and recommendations during a special meeting for staff. Furthermore, the Dutch NPM has recently participated in a training workshop on learning methodologies and techniques to influence behaviour.146 When an NPM can visit the same place of detention on a more frequent basis, e.g. as in Malta or for some of the bodies in the UK NPM, it is argued that the presence of the NPM not only has a deterrent effect but can ensure a sustainable dialogue, create a greater awareness of the concerns of the detainees, and establish a relationship of trust with the authorities. From our research conducted in the framework of this Project it can be concluded that periodic visits are in themselves an important form of follow-up as they enable the NPM to verify information provided by the state authorities and enter into a direct dialogue with the directors and staff on implementation. Visits as a form of direct dialogue with the visited institution can be particularly useful in regard to privately administered places of detention as they are not part of the NPM’s dialogue with the state. The periodicity of visits will depend on a number of factors including the number of institutions within a state and staffing and other resources of the NPM. It is recommended that NPMs reflect upon their visiting methodology and the interaction with the authorities and consider how the visits can not only be used in the best possible way to follow-up and assess the implementation of recommendations but also to motivate the authorities to implement and to find prompt and practical solutions to problems under their direct control. UK, HMIP, Inspection Framework (2014) para 3.1. See also APT and IIHR, Implementation Manual (2010). 146 For more information see the Dutch NPM’s website: <http://www.inspectieloket.nl/vernieuwing_toezicht/programma_ opleidingen/Nalevingscommunicatie/>. 144 145 - 50 -