Part II: Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation assist the EU to address some of these challenges. For example, in the context of EU mutual recognition measures, such as the EAW or the FDs on transfer of prisoners, one of the challenges EU member states’ authorities often encounter when implementing EU law - and thus when deciding on the surrender of a person or the transfer of a prisoner to another EU member state - is the lack of reliable information on detention conditions of other EU member states. NPMs’ work could be used to address this shortcoming. Beyond the implementation of EU law, reports of NPMs (and of course of the CPT and SPT) can also serve as a useful source of information to monitor the fundamental rights’ situation in EU member states.240 Nonetheless, so far neither the European Commission, nor the FRA or any other EU body regularly collect relevant and useful information produced by NPMs, nor is there any institutionalised coordination or cooperation with NPMs. One of the few exception, in this regard, seems to be FRA’s recent work on forced return monitoring, which looks at the current state of play of forced return monitoring systems put in place by the EU member states under the Return Directive, and thus also to the EU NPMs, where they carry out the monitoring.241 Still, within the EU institutions the expertise and first-hand knowledge of NPMs as well as the main torture prevention monitoring bodies remains mostly unused. Furthermore, the consultations held in the framework of this Project clearly showed that there is a high demand for exchanging good practises and expertise between NPMs themselves, as well as with the CPT and SPT. Thus it was suggested that the EU could possibly facilitate such meetings. Due to existing workloads, it was suggested that personal meetings could be complemented by an online platform. In addition, as some topics related to the broad preventive mandate could be highly technical and specialised, it was suggested to involve also external experts, e.g. psychiatrists, doctors. Increasing exchanges between NPMs would not only make NPMs more effective, but would also reinforce the ties between NPMs in Europe. This could help to develop ‘joined-up’ learning and possibly the identification of common approaches and positions, which could strengthen the input and impact of NPMs within relevant EU initiatives, for example through the drafting of “joint NPM reports” in case of important policy or legislative proposals at the EU level. CPT and the EU Unlike the one with NPMs, for EU cooperation with the CPT there is a structure in place at the higher political levels e.g. through a permanent high-level dialogue between the EU and CPT. However at the operational, working level the opportunity for dialogue does not appear to being in place. It was noted that there is a lack of coordination within the EU, with one DG not always knowing what the other DG does. This can on the one side hinder the exchange of information as well as cross-sector learning and decision-making within the Commission itself; and on the other side make it difficult for the CPT, as well as NPMs and SPT, to engage with relevant EU institutions in an effective and strategic way. In addition the lack of awareness of the CPT’s mandate within the Commission, and the frequent change of interlocutors were identified as obstacles for a strategic and impactful engagement of the CPT, and equally NPMs and SPT. The introduction of a focal point for detention issues at the Commission was therefore suggested to aid cooperation, collaboration and dialogue between the EU and torture monitoring bodies. A recent development to foster better coordination has been the establishment within the Commission of an informal working group on detention issues, consisting of members coming from several DGs and the EEAS. The working group has met a few times. Although cooperation appears to have improved in some areas, for example with EU agencies such as FRA and FRONTEX, the CPT is not systematically included in relevant EU law drafting processes or policy 240 241 - 80 - See FRA website <http://fra.europa.eu/en/theme/asylum-migration-borders/forced-return>. See EU Court of Auditor ‘The External Borders Fund has fostered financial solidarity but requires better measurement of results and needs to provide further EU added value’ (Special report 2014) n 15, 33, where the Court criticised the support and subsequent funding (through the External Borders Fund) of a temporary detention centre for migrants in Greece.