be unproblematic. If, for example, overcrowding is identified as an issue, the NPM will suggest that judges deploy alternatives to custody during sentencing. As the issue of overcrowding is of special relevance for many EU Member States, and is directly relevant to the relationship and potential exchange between NPMs and the judiciary.264 Similarly, the Estonian NPM has given recommendations to the judiciary without reproach. “We addressed the judiciary quite frequently. The courts never said that this is not our mandate. We recommended for example that if a person has to be detained in a mental health institution, that place should be visited, and that specific person as well. We also issued recommendations about immigration detention, and the use of electronic restraints”.265 Recommendations were always immediately followed-up with meetings shortly afterwards, where for example the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Finance and other stakeholders, together with the judiciary, participated. Such meetings offered a platform for all stakeholders to present their concerns. Some Ombuds institutions in which the NPM is a part, such as Sweden and Finland, have an explicit mandate to monitor courts. The Finnish NPM stated that it can receive and examine complaints relating to courts and judges and is mandated to inspect them, while respecting the independence of the judiciary. In practice, this means that evidence cannot be evaluated, nor the interpretation of legal issues considered, but issues such as administrative errors, delays, and behaviour or conduct, can be the subject of scrutiny, as well as undertaking inspection visits and examining covert measures of policing, for example wiretapping. The Portuguese NPM explained, that as Ombudsman they receive many complaints regarding delays, especially from individuals waiting for judicial review in pre-trial detention. However, the NPM does not address judges directly but goes through the Council of the Judiciary to question the delay. The SPT, when asked about its approach to NPMs addressing the role of the judiciary clearly stated that while “NPMs of course cannot tell judges how to judge or interfere in judicial proceedings, they can point at international norms to be taken into account.”266 Generally, the question would however be for the NPM to decide, including NPMs that are part of Ombuds institutions. Additionally, Mari Amos, (SPT) stressed that it would be important to get judges “on board” in order to effectively prevent ill-treatment. In this regard, the APT is of the view that NPMs can give recommendations to the judiciary. As it is a sensitive exercise, it was suggested to use such recommendations in a strategic manner and for systemic issues.267 This means that according to the APT, NPMs should have a strategic aim rather than acting ad hoc or reacting on requests to make use of the power of the judiciary. The authors of this Study subscribe to this view. Judicial independence is always to be respected and recommendations as to how a court should dispose of a particular case would unacceptable. However, recommendations on systemic issues or structural concerns not only fall squarely within NPMs’ mandate, but raising these general issues do not interfere with judicial independence. Parallels could be drawn between NPM recommendations and any recommendations given by interna264 Other EU NPMs including Slovenia also indicated that they make recommendations to the judiciary. This is practice also amongst non-EU NPM. The NPM of Paraguay made recommendations on the de-institutionalisation of children: In July 2013, after a respective recommendation by the NPM, the Supreme Court issued a resolution “to ensure that children and adolescents are only placed in institutions in exceptional circumstances and as a temporary arrangement, with a focus on finding and maintaining ties with their families.” 265 Interview with Mari Amos, SPT 30 August 2016. 266 Interview with Mari Amos, SPT 30 August 2016. 267 Interview with APT, 3 November 2016. 71