Foreword by the Chairman jections very well. Nevertheless, I would like to draw attention to the following: during visits, the commission is represented by a team of three to five individuals, who spend one or two days in the detention facility. This is sufficient to observe certain deviations from standards or other deficiencies. However, after such a brief inspection, it would be daring to say that a facility is run in an exemplary manner or to certify the propriety of the manner in which detainees are treated. Certainly, we are often impressed by the warm-hearted interactions we witness when we visit the workshops or accompany staff members on their rounds. Nevertheless, it would be presumptuous on our part to take this as a basis for an overall assessment of the quality of a facility – something which the Commission avoids even in the opposite case where conditions are highly unsatisfactory – as it would entail the risk of giving a seal of approval without having identified deficiencies. It is thus not always possible to avoid offence being taken in some cases, despite the efforts of our delegations to stress also the positive observations they have made during their discussions with the administration and staff of the facilities. A further difficulty regarding the task of issuing recommendations in reports to the responsible authorities lies in ensuring that they are being addressed to the right stakeholders, and that they strike a proper balance while remaining consistent with the facts. In its deliberations on the reports at the Commission’s plenary meetings, discussions over the proper formulation of the recommendations often continue for hours. Should they better be addressed to the Parliament, to the Federal Council, or to the administration of the facility in question. How is criticism concerning individual cases to be presented? Are we applying the same standards to all facilities? Is it possible to implement the recommendations and, if not (due to financial reasons, for example), does it make sense to keep reiterating the same criticism, even if rapid improvements in the situation cannot be expected in the near future? Would it be understood as acceptance of the existing conditions if such criticism would be omitted? Furthermore, over the Commission’s eight years in existence, its membership has changed, while the establishment of standards has remained an ongoing process. Thus, it is possible that new recommenda- 2 Activity Report NCPT 2017