Referring individual cases to the prosecution The SPT Assessment Tool for NPMs stipulates, that NPMs, “should have clear guidelines for reporting individual cases of deliberate ill-treatment and requesting inquiries, as well as for maintaining the confidentiality of the detainee concerned and any other source of relevant information and protecting such persons against reprisals.”283 It was also emphasised during the NPM workshop in this project that individuals concerned would have to consent to this step, keeping in mind the “do no harm” principle as an overarching tenet of the NPM’s work. Most NPMs refer individual cases where they suspect a criminal offence to the judiciary, with many NPMs underlining their legal obligation to inform the prosecution of cases involving penal offences or serious violations of human rights.284 The Italian NPM pointed out in case of a possible Art. 3 ECHR violation against persons deprived of their liberty, it would inform the authority in charge to stop the violation, forward the case to the judicial authority in charge as well as to the relevant Minister. The French NPM also underlined that in the case of grave human rights violations of persons deprived of their liberty, these are communicated without delay to the responsible authorities. If the CGLPL believes it to be necessary, it also makes these findings public immediately, including the response received by the authorities. In case of presumed criminal offences, the French NPM reports these directly to the public prosecutor (Procureur de la Républic). Since 2008, the NPM has made use of this procedure thirteen times.285 283 SPT Assessment Tool for NPMs, para. 29. 284 Data from the survey performed on NPMs in this project. 285 The Swedish and Luxembourgish NPMs also have these functions. The Swedish Ombudsperson even has a mandate to prosecute, although in so far as the NPM is concerned, this has not yet been utilized. 78