recommendations • Interaction between judges and NPMs in relation to prison conditions on a national level is mutually beneficial and should be increased. This engagement could be through formal and informal channels, e.g. through information sharing, dissemination of visiting reports, exchange of information regarding joint issues of concern (particularly with regard to judges mandated to monitor detention facilities.) While many felt during the course of the project that joint visits would be inappropriate, sharing good practices and common challenges could be useful. • Increased awareness by judges of the existence of NPMs, their mandate and the reports they produce. As currently awareness is not very well established and relationships are rather weak more needs to be done to establish formal and informal links between judges and NPMs, ideally through institutional exchange, such as trainings and conferences, and ensuring that judges are made aware of the visiting or annual reports. • NPMs should establish themselves as reliable sources, through the quality of their reports and should ensure that reports, annual and visiting reports are made available on their websites, and disseminated widely, including to judges and judicial schools. NPMs could integrate RSS-feeds in the part of their website dealing with reporting and invite focal points among the judiciary, judges and other relevant stakeholders to subscribe to these feeds and thereby contribute to wider dissemination. • The annual reports should be made available in English, or at a minimum, a summary of the reports. • Trainings, particularly with regard to the functioning of the NPM mandate, but also on other subjects regarding ill-treatment or torture prevention, can serve to increase the NPM’s visibility. Trainings and discussions also give an opportunity for NPMs to further explain the rationale behind the recommendations it makes and to build a more cooperative relationship with relevant actors, such as prosecutors and judge. • NPMs should develop a strategy for enhancing the engagement with the judiciary for the prevention of ill-treatment, setting out the parameters of their respective roles and the limits to engagement, and ensuring that independence and confidentiality are always guaranteed. To this end, the question of attending court or being compelled to attend court and give evidence could be explored, and the scope of the information that can be provide outlined. The development of guidelines could be supported by the SPT. • NPMs should strengthen their understanding of EU law to improve NPM awareness of EU law as a prerequisite to comment on laws and generally play a more active role in the implementation of EU law. NPMs could raise awareness of EU instruments, and work with the media and the public in order to ensure that the issues surrounding pre-trial detention, overcrowding, the risks to Article 3 ECHR, as well as the benefits of alternatives to detention are understood. At the same time, the EU should consult with a broad range of stakeholders, including the SPT, CPT, and NPMs and ensure that relevant expertise is taken on board when elaborating new legal instruments. 99