success of the redrafting project lies in the fact that all stakeholders were empowered with training on plain language and involvement from the beginning. Consensus between various stakeholders around the need for a new Letter of Rights and on the language used was steadily built from the inception of the project. However, despite the broad stakeholders engagement and previous Europe-wide evidencebased research showing that current letters of rights are too long and complex to allow suspected persons to understand their rights, the plain language letter of rights is still not used in practice. Although the benefits of such a document for suspected persons is clear, decision-makers still seem to need additional evidence to fully engage in the reform. In 2023, the working group will pilot the new version in various police stations around Belgium, the final objective being to convince decision makers to make the necessary legal changes to officially use it. 2.4.1 Identification of key stakeholders The first step to engagement is to identify key stakeholders (“people and organisations that affect and are affected by the issue”).55 Project partners confirmed that it was not always easy to identify the right stakeholders for the national roundtables. Conducting a ‘Stakeholder Mapping’56 exercise helped in that regard and also allowed us to analyse the influence and interest in the desired change. It is important to take into account the broader context in which the problem occurs and not limit ourselves to the ‘usual actors’ of the criminal justice system. The stakeholders for strengthening procedural rights involve a broad range of actors and disciplines. These include, for example, but not only, defence lawyers/Bar Associations, legal aid agencies, judges and prosecutors, members of the Parliament, CSOs active in the criminal justice sector but also in other sectors, such as CSOs specialised in migration, children or disabilities rights, anti-racism, poverty, etc. Stakeholders may also include the media, social services, grassroots organisations working directly with communities, medical staff, etc. Project partners confirmed that it was not always easy to identify the right stakeholders. In order to gain a more precise picture it is important to include diverse perspectives in this effort. Therefore, the national workshops carried out a stakeholder mapping exercise as part of the preparation or even the agenda. This resulted in a detailed map including concrete contact persons and questions like: • • • • • What is important to the stakeholder? How could the stakeholder contribute to change? How much capacity does the stakeholder have to get involved? How much interest and influence has the stakeholder in change processes? What is the strategy to get the stakeholder involved? Moreover, the national roundtables were carefully evaluated to analyse the role of the different stakeholders in the roundtables throughout the change process. This included questions on the involvement of the stakeholders in the development of a common vision and reluctances observed; the atmosphere and how it developed during the roundtables; any behavioural changes during the roundtables; barriers during the roundtables; what they did and what can be done to overcome them; dominant interest during the discussions. 55. Green, How Change Happens (2016). 56. Stakeholder mapping belongs to the classical tools of a broad Theory of Change approach. For a description of such a process in the context of follow-up strategies to recommendations of NPMs. See Birk and others, ‘Enhancing Impact of National Preventive Mechanisms’ (2015) 99-101. 24