ADDRESSING VULNERABILITIES OF LGBT PERSONS IN DETENTION • During their visits, NPMs should at all times apply the principle of "do no harm", which is of particular importance when specifically monitoring the situation of LGBT persons in detention. In this regard, monitoring bodies are encouraged to question the relevance of identifying the sexual orientation and gender identity of persons with whom they conduct individual interviews and to avoid any action that could lead to even greater stigmatisation and discrimination against this group. • The designation of a "focal point" on LGBT issues within the NPM is not a requirement and is not always a necessity. However, it enables the systematic recording and sharing of the information gathered on this issue with all concerned, the coordination of possible action with the authorities or civil society, and finally the dissemination of a clear message to the outside world illustrating the importance the NPM attaches to this question. • Reports - especially thematic reports and annual reports - are the most visible part of the work of an NPM. Given their potential impact, for example, in highlighting some of the least known problems that exist in places of detention, NPMs are encouraged to consider the possibility of increasing thematic coverage of LGBT issues in their reports, while measuring the pros and cons of such action in terms of ensuring respect for the principle "do no harm". • Given the complexity of the issue and the difficulties faced by NPMs in certain contexts to include information on LGBT persons deprived of their liberty in their reports, a proposal was presented to draft a global report containing the related findings and recommendations of NPMs from around the world. • There is a glaring lack of standards or guidelines at the international level on the management and care of LGBT persons in detention, notably with respect to safeguards against discrimination and abuse. Participants agreed that this makes their monitoring task particularly difficult. In the absence of such standards, a first step would be to develop guidelines designed to help monitoring bodies refine their detention visit practices and better prepare their recommendations to the authorities. 31