Relations between the CPT and National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) 35. Of course, the mere fact of an NPM being OPCAT-compliant is not a guarantee of success. Possessing the relevant powers and adequate resources is one thing, making the most effective use of them quite another. Exchange of knowledge 36. In recent years, the CPT has taken an active part in a number of events aimed at fostering among the different monitoring bodies mandated to prevent illtreatment a coherent approach in terms of both standards and working methods. This has occurred in particular in the framework of the European NPM Project, which comprised both thematic workshops and onsite exchanges of experience. The Committee has also participated in conferences on the establishment of NPMs at national level. Additionally, CPT members have been involved in their private capacity in training activities in their own country and in third countries. All this has resulted in valuable experience-sharing on prevention of torture and other forms of ill-treatment, and more specifically on the most effective methods of conducting visits to places of deprivation of liberty. 37. The CPT will continue to participate in such events, which beyond the knowledge exchanged serve more generally to promote synergy between the national and international partners in the field of prevention of ill-treatment. In this context, the Committee is envisaging the organisation of regular exchanges of views on topical issues with representatives of established and operational NPMs. 38. On substantive issues, the CPT has gradually developed its own set of “measuring rods”. This has been done not only on the basis of the Committee’s empirical findings during visits, but also in the light of some key reference points, such as Council of Europe recommendations relating to the deprivation of liberty and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as relevant UN human rights instruments and related jurisprudence. These general criteria3 provide a basis for assessment and the recommendations contained in CPT reports. A similar process of standards development can be expected in countries which have ratified the OPCAT, as the NPMs gradually develop their activities, and this brings with it the risk of diverging approaches and interpretations vis-à-vis given situations. Regular exchanges of views of the kind just referred to will help to counter this risk. It may well not be possible to arrive at common standards in all areas, but everything should be done to facilitate the coherence of action proposed. If the CPT and NPMs issue contradictory recommendations, this can only undermine their respective efforts to prevent ill-treatment. 39. Equally, the precise manner in which one goes about the business of visiting the different types of places of deprivation of liberty should be the subject of a continuous sharing of experience and knowledge, so as to promote as far as possible consistent methodologies. The CPT could make available internal tools it has developed in this area. 3. Which are reproduced in part in the publication “CPT standards” ; CPT/Inf (2002) 1 – Rev.2011 17