Guidebook 360 CPT, Report to the United Kingdom (2002) CPT/Inf (2002) 6, paras 26, 27, 33, 123, 124, pp 13-15, 41. See also: CPT, ‘Report to Spain’ (2013) CPT/Inf (2013) 6 para 24, p 22; APT/PRI, ‘Video recording’ (2015). 361 APT, ‘Monitoring Police Custody’ (2013), p 79. 362 CPT, Report to Norway (2019) CPT/Inf (2019) 1, paras 29, 30, pp 17/18. See also CPT/Inf (2001) 6, paras 26, 27, 33, 123, 124, pp 13-15, 41. 363 International Consultation Workshop, Budapest, 12-13 February 2019. 364 Interview with NPM representative, Austria, 21 August 2019. 365 Extracts from Interview, 30 August 2019. 366 Interview with external expert, Austria, 14 July 2018. Such interviews could also be conducted with prisoners who are serving their sentence after a final judgement. 367 APT, ‘Monitoring Police Custody’ (2013), p 46. 368 APT, ‘Monitoring Police Custody’ (2013); APT, ‘Towards the Effective Protection of LQBTI Persons Deprived of Liberty: A Monitoring Guide’ (2018), p 49; APT/PRI, ‘Video recording’ (2015), p 7. 369 Interview with CPT Representative, September 2019. 370 SPT, Ninpara para 86; see also APT/PRI, ‘Pre-trial detention’ (2015). 371 Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, ‘Police Custody: The detention of persons in police custody in Northern Ireland’ (March 2016). 372 GAHNRI, SCA GO, G.O. 2.9; see also De Beco/Murray, 2014, p 103; Carver, ‘A New Answer to an Old Question: National Human Rights Institutions and the Domestication of International Law' [2010] 10 HRLR 25. 373 CRPD/C/1/Rev.1 Annex. 374 The 14 countries are: Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia. Netherlands and Slovakia which have a mandate for individual complaints only regarding non-discrimination cases. 375 In France the Defender of Rights, which is different from the NHRIs (Commission nationale consultative des droits de l’homme) and the NPM (Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de libert) is the institution competent to handle complaints. For more information see <https://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr/en> accessed 10 December 2019. 376 France, Défenseur des Droits, Décision du Défenseur des droits n°2018-128,(17 April 2018). 377 Fair Trials, 'Glassboxes in courtrooms violate presumption of innocence, finds French Ombudsperson' (24 April 2018) <https://www.fairtrials.org/news/glass-boxes-courtrooms-violate-presumption-innocence-finds-french-ombudsperson> accessed 3 December 2018. 378 Karachentsev v Russia. 379 Karachentsev v Russia. 380 Karachentsev v Russia. 381 Karachentsev v Russia. 382 Directive on Presumption of innocence, Art 5 Presentation of suspects and accused persons: ‘1.Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that suspects and accused persons are not presented as being guilty, in court or in public, through the use of measures of physical restraint. 2. Paragraph 1 shall not prevent Member States from applying measures of physical restraint that are required for case-specific reasons, relating to security or to the prevention of suspects or accused persons from absconding or from having contact with third persons.’ 383 On the principle of subsidiarity see also Kucsko-Stadlmayer, 2008, p 20. 146 FOOTNOTES 384 Slovenia: Arts 24, 27, 30 Human Rights Ombudsman Act Official Gazette RS No. 71/1993 (hereinafter Slovenia: Ombudsman Act); Croatia: Art. 22 Ombudsman’s Act; Austria: Article 148a (1) Austrian Federal Constitution. See also Thienel/ Leitl-Staudinger in Kneihs/ Lienbacher (eds), Rill-Schäffer-Kommentar Bundesverfassungsrecht, Art 148a B-VG (2017), p 20. 385 Hungary: Section 18 Commissioner Act); Lithuania: Arts 13-17 Ombudsman law (complaints relating to the matter has already been resolved); Czech Republic: Section 12 (d) Act 349/1999 Coll. of 8 December 1999 on the Public Defender of Rights, as lastly amended by 396/2012 Coll; Slovakia: Section 15 (b), (c)The Act 564/2001 Coll. of Laws on Public Defender of Rights 4 December 2001; Estonia: Section 25 (2)Chancellor of Justice Act, RT I 1999, 29, 406, as amended in 2018. . 386 International Consultation Workshop, Budapest, 12-13 February 2019.. 387 Slovenian Ombudsman, Annual Report of 2017, p 155. 388 Austria: Art 148a(4) Austrian Federal Constitution; Slovenia: Art 24 Ombudsman Act; Croatia: Art. 22 Ombudsman’s Act. 389 Slovenia: Art 24 Human Rights Ombudsman Act. 390 Croatia: Art 22 Ombudsman’s Act. See also Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, pp. 22 ff. 391 Amnesty International, ‘Amnesty International’s Recommendations On Effective Protection And Promotion Of Human Rights’ (Amnesty International, October 2001), pp 29 ff. 392 Spain: Art 17 (2) NHRI law 393 Asia Pacific Forum (APF), ‘A Manual on National Human Rights Institutions (May 2018)’, p 319 (hereinafter APF, 2018). 394 International Council on Human Rights Policy and OHCHR, ‘Assessing the Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions’ (2005), p 22. 395 Welch R M, ‘National Human Rights Institutions: Domestic Implementation of International Human Rights Law’ in Journal of Human Rights 16 (1), pp 96–116. 396 Poland: Art 14 (5) Commissioner's Act. 397 Finland: Section 110 Constitution of Finland and Art 8 Parliamentary Ombudsman Act. 398 Poland: Art 14(8) Commissioner's Act 399 Kasacja RPO w sprawie mężczyzny z niepełnosprawnością umysłową skazanego za morderstwo, 24 December 2018; see also: Polish Helsinki Foundation, ‘Man talked into murder. Application to ECtHR involving person with intellectual disability’, 9 February 2017 (before the Commissioner filed the cassation with the Supreme Court, the HFHR filed an application to the ECtHR). 400 Spain: Art 29 NHRI law; Slovenia: Arti 50 of the Constitutional Court Act (ZUstS) grants the Ombudsman the right to file a constitutional complaint concerning a violation of human rights or fundamental freedoms of individuals or legal entities with an individual document of a state or local authority or a holder of public powers. 401 Slovenian Ombudsman, Annual Report of 2017, p 28 ff. 402 Nairobi Declaration; APF, 2018, p 184; 403 Helsinki Foundation of Human Rights, ‘To Luxembourg instead of Strasbourg? A report in the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the protection of human rights’, September 2018, p 57f (hereinafter Helsinki Foundation if Human Rights, 2018). 404 Slovenia: Slovenian Ombudsman Act, Art 25. 405 Interview with NHRI representative of the Netherlands, 2019. 406 For examples outside the EU see APF, 2018, pp 300 ff. 407 See National Report Poland, p 3. For an example from the Canadian system see Magonet, 'Should the Dispute Remain Between the Accused and the Crown? Third-Party Interven- 147