Appendix: with its recommendations. However, the mechanism should not hesitate to speak out if its position was being misrepresented; for example, if a recommendation to get rid of large-capacity dormitories was used to justify the introduction of a system of isolation. Other situations could occur in which it might be judicious for an NPM to acquiesce in another body (for example, the legislator) taking all credit for the change concerned, even if the mechanism had made a contribution. Finally, it was recognised that an NPM was just one participant in a wider process involving numerous actors. There might be value in attempting, in an objective and scientific way, to pinpoint the place of the mechanism in that «ecosystem» and to evaluate the importance of its contribution. The insights provided by an investigation of this kind could enable the NPM to enhance its effectiveness and impact. That said, any such assessment would clearly have to be entrusted to a suitably-qualified body that was fully independent of the NPM concerned. At the close of the Conference, the representative of the Council of Europe indicated that he felt that the important question of NPM impact assessment has now been sufficiently been reflected upon in a collective manner during the two European NPM Forum meetings in Paris and Ljubljana. It would now be of help to all if one or several NPMs proceeded with a self assessment of their impact combined with an external assessment and if those were made available to the community. Proposals for an NPM-lead Network by John Wadham Introduction: John Wadham from the UK and Eva Csergö, the Europe and Central Asia Programme Officer of the Association for the Prevention of Torture gave an account of the discussions held in Geneva in February with a number of NPMs about the idea of setting up a NPM-lead European Network. History: The need for an NPM-led network in Europe was voiced back at the 2016 First Annual Meeting of OSCE NPMs, conveyed by the OSCE/ODIHR and the APT in Vienna. Some NPMs thought that they needed to have a unified and independent NPM voice to advocate for enhanced consultation on NPM events organized by other parties. As a follow-up, 12 NPMs then wrote a letter to the OSCE/ODIHR, the European Union and the Council of Europe, calling for an NPM ownership of NPM meetings and events. Geneva: Those present in Geneva agreed on the usefulness of resuming NPM exchanges at European level, which had been successfully carried out within the former European NPM network under the aegis of the Council of Europe (2010-2012)- but not sustained afterwards. Such Europe-wide initiative would usefully complement the existing NPM platforms and networks in the region, including: sub-regional NPM networks: the South-East European NPM network, the German-speaking NPM network (Austria, Germany, and Switzerland), the Scandinavian NPM network. the European NPM newsletter and other initiatives such as the Slack platform developed by SPT member Mari Amos. A key reason for the initiative was to raise the profile and status of NPMs internationally: GANHRI, the Global Alliance of NHRIs, managed to successfully carry the voice of NHRIs, build their collective identity and lobby for their presence at UN level. NHRIs now have a consultative status at the UN, and the CRPD for instance also refers to them. For NPMs, many UN meetings- especially under the Human Rights Council- are not accessible, although they can now have private meetings with the UN Committee against torture prior to CAT reviews. As for now, they are for instance obliged to attend the UPR sessions of their State from the public gallery. They need to be more visible, and to get a higher status and recognition, even when they are under an NHRI or an Ombuds institution. Coordinate on the topics and planning of NPM meetings organized by other stakeholders: If NPMs could speak with one voice, they could be consulted on the agendas and planning of possible NPM meetings conveyed by others. NPM could advocate for specific topics to be discussed at these meetings, and be consulted on the planning of these meetings which often are called late and can conflict with other obligations. Following the meeting in Geneva Eva had undertaken a survey of NPMS, most of whom wished to see a continuation of this initiative. Ljubljana: At the meeting in Ljubljana many people were also positive today but some expressed concerns that the initiative might have a negative effect on the current regional structures. However it 56 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE NPM IN 2018 NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT