strategic litigation by CSOs and reporting to the parliament, and high-level dialogue between NPMs and responsible state institutions. Participants also agreed that in those OSCE participating States with an increasingly shrinking space for CSOs, strong coalitions and support from NPMs and other independent human rights institutions is vital to their work. C. Challenges in the cooperation and how to address them Some NPMs explained that the confidentiality of the data collected by NPMs, which should not disclose any identifiable information without expressed consent of their interviewees, may be difficult to preserve if independent experts from CSOs accompanying them on visits are not well-briefed on the requirements of the OPCAT mandate. The establishment of NPMs, in some cases, has led some states to close the doors or to complicate the access for civil society monitors to places of detention. All participants agreed that the establishment of NPMs should neither weaken nor impede the work of existing civil society monitoring mechanisms. The OPCAT itself states that NPMs should complement, not replace any existing detention monitoring schemes. Participants recommended that in such cases, NPMs support civil society in gaining access to detention centres. It was also discussed that whilst certain models of co-operation guarantee a meaningful involvement of civil society in NPM activities, some models of formal co-operation, such as the involvement of CSOs in an NPM Advisory Body, can remain superficial. In order to address such challenges for co-operation, participants suggested that the modus operandi and rules of co-operation as well as potential outcomes of an NPM-CSO agreement should be formulated and set out so that roles and responsibilities are attributed clearly, and as early as possible, to avoid any misunderstanding, frustration or conflict. Such agreements must cover all stages of the co-operation, including the drafting of reports, the strategic follow-up on recommendations and outreach to the wider public. Also within close co-operation, it is vital to maintain a clear division between CSOs and NPMs and their respective independent mandates. Both have different but complementary approaches and bring something different to society. Practice pointer In Slovenia, the CSOs working alongside the Ombuds institution as part of the NPM have a double monitoring activity: as part of the NPM, and independent, in their own name. They thus write NPM reports, but also their own independent reports, which have complementary approaches and focus. More generally, the strategic co-operation of NPMs and CSOs is one of the keys to successful prevention of torture. Whatever models of co-operation are adopted, together they can better identify violations of the absolute prohibition against torture and other ill-treatment and other human rights of persons deprived of their liberty, and better address them by mobilizing all stakeholders and decision-makers. 17