A need to strengthen the coordination with judges conducting prison visits In many EU Member States judges have a mandate to visit places of detention. The extent to which mandates are applied in practice differ from Member State to Member State, from a supervisory function within prisons, or with regard to specific cases. So far, there is virtually no coordination between such supervisory judges and NPMs. Most NPMs stated, that the visits are strictly separate and there is no form of coordination or exchange of information. This means, that some NPMs are also not aware whether judges even undertake visits. Other NPMs suggested that it would be extremely useful if judges used their mandate to conduct prison visits more often. Several NPMs have stated, that increased coordination or cooperation would be useful. There are also limited examples of exchange. The Italian NPM contacts the responsible magistrates overseeing detention (magistrati di sorveglianza) to learn of their point of view relating to conditions of detention in a particular prison, to receive information about possible problematic issues and draft joint action plans to resolve problems. The French NPM, while not coordinating with judges who undertake visits, has proposed to the Ministry of Justice to help consider providing a toolbox for judges, that when they undertake visits to places of detention, they have a guidance document that they can follow. The Polish NPM in an attempt to reach out to judges sends its visiting report to the judge responsible for the place of detention after every visit. They also ask the director of each place of detention to see the last protocol of the judges’ visit. The NPM has so far not received an answer from judges who have received the report and twice judges even put into their report that they disagree with the NPM. While this outreach has not yet lead to any fruitful exchange between the two visiting bodies, the practice of outreach certainly serves as a good example of how judges could be approached by NPMs. In the authors’ view where judges are mandated to conduct prison visits this provides for a good opportunity to coordinate and exchange information with NPMs. NPMs should consider how this opportunity could be better seized to strengthen the prevention of ill-treatment and overall engagement with the judiciary. Where appropriate, the information from visits could be shared, problematic areas and systemic failures identified and addressed. NPMs and Judges with a mandate to conduct prison visits could share experiences, concerns, identify good practices, and provide for the potential of follow up. Such coordination would not necessarily have to touch upon specific or individual cases, where there are concerns regarding confidentiality and independence, but rather raise broader issues with a view to effectively improving conditions and eradicating ill-treatment. 77