of course have a major impact on how easily such contacts can be established. The Luxembourgish NPM has mentioned in a previous project conducted by the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights, that building trust is important and that this has to be bolstered though professional legal competence “as each professional group, including judges, speak their own language.”274 To this end the NPM of Luxembourg stated, “We hold joint consultation with judges, the Ministry of Justice, etc. for example on draft laws, such as the penitentiary law reform, youth protection, etc., so we have a close cooperation. They listen to us, they respect us, we are well established now. […] Sometimes, also the Ministry of Justice itself calls us for an opinion, as was the case regarding the use of electronic tags.”275 The NPM and the judiciary thus engage on joint matters of concern, with the NPM at all times respecting the independence of the judiciary. The German NPM mentioned that an obstacle to the dissemination of reports and establishment of personal contacts is knowing whom to contact. Thus, it suggested that it could be helpful to establish specific contact points. The authors of this Study therefore believe that each NPM, in the framework of their specific context should reflect upon how they would like to approach specific questions of coordination and exchange with the judiciary – always with the clear objective of preventing torture and ill treatment. In order to engage, it will be crucial to cultivate trustworthy personal contacts, which might take time to establish. NPMs and judges could also take part in or create personal forums of exchange, in order to be able to discuss issues of joint concern and to strengthen awareness of each other’s role. A third of NPMs conduct trainings with judiciary Eight of the consulted NPM participate in training courses for the judiciary, mostly but not limited to NPM related topics.276 For example, the Estonian Chancellor of Justice and her advisors quite often participate in trainings for judges – not only related to NPM matters, but also with regard to other areas of law. The French and Italian NPMs present their mandate in the framework of conducting trainings for judges. In France, trainee judges even have the possibility to do part of their legal clerkship (stage) at the French NPM. The Finnish NPM also holds lectures for court personnel and judges. In some countries, like Hungary, the Ombudsman who gives lectures to members of the judiciary. The Italian NPM has also organised a workshop on a recent Grand Chamber Judgment of the ECtHR relating to prison overcrowding for members of its staff, the deputy president of the Constitutional court as well as magistrates overseeing detention. NPMs should explore the possibilities within their national context of conducting or contributing to judicial trainings, particularly on the NPM’s mandate in order to raise awareness. Trainings on other subjects can be useful to increase the NPM’s visibility as well as to explain the rationale behind the recommendations. Such trainings also enable the NPM to enter into discussions with recipients of its recommendations and might constitute a good opportunity to establish trust and cultivate a cooperative relationship with relevant actors, such as prosecutors and judges.277 Contributing or conducting trainings would also be in line with the recommendations of the SPT. In line with the Paris Principles, the SPT stipulates in its Assessment Tool that NPM’s mandates should comprise of, 274 See Birk et al., p. 69. 275 Interview with Luxembourg NPM. 276 These seven NPMs are the NPMs from Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Poland and Portugal. 277 See Birk et al, p. 58-59. 75