MONITORING PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTIONS way of preventing torture. In Brazil, the NPM operates within the framework of a reform of the psychiatric system (Law 10216 of 2001), which recommends replacing psychiatric hospitals with services in the community. The Paraguayan NPM has also given the example of a rural indigenous community, which does not use institutionalisation, to illustrate that the perception of the risks related to mental disability can also be culturally conditioned. Other NPMs see deinstitutionalisation as a long-term goal and adopt a more “pragmatic” approach that consists of questioning cases of arbitrary detention and checking that all guarantees are in place to prevent ill-treatment, in particular the application of the principle of free and informed consent to treatment. Finally, if NPMs and other monitoring bodies can be led to call for the closure of psychiatric establishments and promote community care, there remains the issue of ensuring appropriate measures are in place in the community. It is clear that the absence of community services cannot, under any circumstances, justify institutionalisation, but monitoring bodies’ concern about the future of persons with mental disabilities is legitimate. Several participants expressed their concerns about the lack of health-care services in the community and highlighted the need for states to develop such services instead of renovating long-term stay institutions. In the case of persons in conflict with the law, they also alerted their peers to the need to ensure that the closure of psychiatric establishments does not result in an increase in the number of persons with mental disabilities in prison. Main methodological challenges Participating NPMs debated the specificities and methodological challenges of monitoring psychiatric institutions, in particular: the composition of the visiting team, issues related to the staff of the establishments and interviews in private with the users of psychiatric services. Composition of the visiting team When states create their NPM, the OPCAT requires they ensure NPM staff and members form a multidisciplinary team. This allows the mechanism to benefit from a range of points of view according to each person’s area of expertise. During the Symposium, the NPMs 33