Slovenian npm's 10th anniversary conference report The setting up of a data base dedicated to the implementation of recommendations was seen as an important tool by several participants. Ideally, this would bring together information from a variety of sources, enabling the mechanism to keep track of the precise extent to which each of its recommendations had been accepted and complied with. More generally, it was considered that a well-designed data base allowing an NPM to exploit all the information gathered over the years would enhance the mechanism’s impact in every aspect of its work. In this connection, information was circulated about an extranet database which was being prepared by one of the NPM’s represented at the conference. There was general agreement that being in the «public eye» would promote the impact of an NPM’s activities. Was there a strategy of communication ? Were its reports, whether on specific institutions or thematic, made public ? Did they receive extensive coverage in the local/national media ? And was the published material adapted to the audience ? Getting the message across in an effective manner required adjusting the wording, format, «packaging» to the addressee (government officials, the media, the general public, detained persons, etc). Several participants emphasised that photographic material can be very effective in generating awareness of and concern about an issue. It was also important not to focus only on the «bad news»; highlighting positive developments in the area of deprivation of liberty (for example, a vocational training programme yielding positive results) could help to counter preconceived ideas. As for the objective of actual improvement in the situation of persons deprived of their liberty, there may well be positive changes that can clearly be attributed to the NPM’s work; indicators designed to identify such changes would be needed. More broadly, the NPM’s contribution to strengthening the protection of detained persons could be assessed using indicators probing its efforts to ensure compliance with recognised standards and preventive measures; in addition to the three fundamental safeguards already mentioned under theme 2, reference might be made to the Mandela and European Prison Rules, the Istanbul Protocol, the Bangkok and Havana Rules, the CPT’s standards, etc. The examination of theme 3 sparked a discussion about whether a distinction should be drawn between the notions of «impact» and «success». It was argued, by way of example, that if legislation was adopted in response to an NPM recommendation, the mechanism could certainly be said to have had an impact; but only if the legislation was subsequently implemented in practice could one speak of success. Certain participants had misgivings about using the notion of «success» in the context of implementation of NPM recommendations. Nevertheless, it was acknowledged that impact should be seen as a multilayered phenomenon; achieving the objective sought, especially as regards systemic change, could well require a succession of impacts in the context of an overall strategy. Theme 4: E  stablishing causality between changes observed and an NPM’s work (and how much does it matter)? Participants noted that causality might on occasion be clear, especially in relation to clearly defined and institution-specific issues. Taking away shutters from a cell window, improvements to hygiene, the transfer of a prisoner to a hospital facility or his/her removal from solitary confinement, the setting up an investigation into allegations of ill-treatment; it was not uncommon for concrete developments of this kind to be prompted by an NPM visit and they could even occur while the visit was underway. Moreover, when a new instruction was issued or law adopted, the administrative authority concerned or the legislator may directly refer to the NPM’s findings/recommendations as the grounds for taking that measure or at least as being one of them. Similarly, the decision of a court related to the treatment of one or more detained persons (and perhaps with system-wide implications) may specifically refer to the NPM’s findings or standards it has advocated. That said, it was acknowledged that the link of causality would very frequently be far from clear-cut. Despite this, whenever a change was made which was consistent with recommendations made by an NPM, it was considered legitimate to presume that the mechanism had at least contributed to this development. And it was argued that NPMs should not be shy about laying claim to that contribution. Situations might arise in which a change being introduced was controversial and the authority concerned made reference to the NPM’s work as an excuse for the measure. It was argued that the NPM would have to accept being instrumentalised in this way provided the development in question was indeed in line 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 55