Part II: Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation meetings with the authorities are held following thematic reports and when discussing steps on how to implement recommendations.161 The Estonian and Dutch NPMs use thematic and specific roundtables and conferences as a forum for exchange with representatives from different state institutions. The Dutch NPM has specifically mentioned such fora as a useful instrument to invite staff from places of detention. The Hungarian NPM (Commissioner for Fundamental Rights or Ombudsman) emphasised the importance of convening or participating at conferences or round-tables on thematic issues to follow-up the reports and recommendations and enter into a more substantive discussion with the relevant actors. The discussions are internally documented by the NPM and can then also be followed up at a later stage. In some countries, meetings with the highest ministerial level have proven to be particularly effective. While this appears to be relatively easy in small countries (e.g. Cyprus, Malta), in larger jurisdictions the NPM may not always have direct and easy access to individuals at this level. A good example for securing access to the highest level is Slovenia, where the Ombudsman has a legally granted right to a personal audience with the President of the Parliament, the Prime Minister, and the ministers within 48 hours after his request.162 While this procedure is only used in exceptional circumstances of particular urgency the Ombudsman has already threatened its use, which has prompted the authorities to act quickly. It is thus regarded as a useful tool. œœ Regular and institutionalised meetings with authorities Several NPMs have stated that a regular, periodic exchange, going beyond ad hoc dialogue, would be useful. The Head of the Dutch NPM meets the Head of the Prison Service, Secretary of State and persons responsible in the ministry several times a year and has stated that this was useful for getting their recommendations implemented. The German NPM has set up an interesting example of institutionalised exchange, including several phases of direct interaction with the Government. The dialogue is held predominantly with the heads of the competent department of the ministry in charge, who act as focal points for the NPM. Directly after the visit, the NPM systematically calls the responsible focal point to inform him/her about the observations and preliminary recommendations made in the final meeting with the director of the institution. This helps building trust by increasing the transparency of the NPM’s work. The talk also involves a discussion on the steps necessary for the implementation, taking into account the challenges and obstacles faced by the authorities, e.g. lack of resources. This exchange can also inform the drafting of the final recommendations. The German NPM’s experience has shown that the written exchange between the NPM and the authorities often takes some time and can be very formal. Thus, the personal and direct exchange on the findings and recommendations is useful in order to explain the background of the recommendations. At the same time the German NPM stated that it is cautious to avoid any unjustifiable influence by the authorities on the report and recommendations. After the report was submitted and the response from the authorities shows that further explanation or discussion of the recommendation and its implementation is necessary, the NPM may meet the relevant focal point in order to discuss the implementation of specific recommendations. These meetings take place regularly but only on the state (Länder) level and provide an opportunity to reach an agreement on the findings and the next steps necessary for the implementation of recommendations. They are often joined by the State representative responsible for the individual measure in discussion. Moreover, the German NPM has also participated in meetings between the department heads of the state (Länder) ministries in charge, to create awareness of the NPM’s work and exchange information. It is the intention to use this forum with different ministries more systematically in the future in order to enhance the implementation of its recommendations and foster the exchange of best practices. This direct dialogue was said to have helped significantly in creating awareness and acceptance of the NPM’s mandate and helped to overcome some differences of opinion with authorities. See BIM and HRIC, ‘Baseline study on follow-up of NPMs in the EU: Country Chapter Bulgaria’ (November 2014). Slovenia, Ombudsman Act, art 46. - 56 161 162