In this context, the ECtHR assesses the quality of assurances given and whether in light of the receiving State’s practices they can be relied upon depending on a number of factors.349 One of these factors mentioned in the case Othman v. UK is “…whether compliance with the assurances can be objectively verified through diplomatic or other monitoring mechanisms.” In this case the Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Jordan actually nominated an independent visiting body to report to the executing State.350 A judge from Germany, noted the practical concerns with monitoring assurances. Her practice was to request diplomatic access as part of the assurances. The difficulty that arose, which stems from the fact that these assurances are not legally binding, was that where the assurances are not fulfilled, there is little or no recourse for that individual. The implications for future cases one can assume would be that the assurances would not be accepted, but that still means that the individual surrendered remains subjected to ill-treatment.351 From the NPM perspective, during the project, it was discussed, whether NPMs see monitoring of assurances as part of their function. There was clear consensus among NPMs that this would go beyond the NPM’s mandate in terms independence, their focus on systemic issues and a general lack of resources that would be needed for such a task. One expert however shared the view that NPMs generally react to topical issues raised by the media and undertake ad-hoc visits based on these developments. The argument was put forward that a request to monitor an assurance is not completely different from an ad-hoc visit, as in neither case, is there an obligation to conduct the visit. However, some NPMs cautioned that a refusal following on from such a request might either put the NPM under pressure or conclusions could be drawn from a refusal to undertake the visit that the situation is not so bad so as to warrant concern. While the majority of NPMs agreed, that monitoring assurances would not be an option for them, the Slovenian NPM stated that it could check the situation of the surrendered person as Ombudsman, should indications of unacceptable circumstances arise. As foreign nationals constitute a vulnerable group in detention, several NPMs are alert to this issue.352 It is under this category that those surrendered would receive attention from an NPM during the course of its visits. One NPM confirmed that heretofore, specific attention was not paid to persons transferred from another state but that they were contemplating including these groups as part of their visits going forward. Therefore, while there was consensus among NPMs that monitoring of assurances would not be for NPMs to address, it was considered that they should pay attention to foreign nationals in detention as one of the groups in a position of particular vulnerability. 349 Ibidem, para. 189: (i) whether the terms of the assurances have been disclosed to the Court; (ii) whether the assurances are specific or are general and vague; (iii) who has given the assurances and whether that person can bind the receiving State; (iv) if the assurances have been issued by the central government of the receiving State, whether local authorities can be expected to abide by them; (v) whether the assurances concerns treatment which is legal or illegal in the receiving State; (vi) whether they have been given by a Contracting State; (vii) the length and strength of bilateral relations between the sending and receiving States, including the receiving State’s record in abiding by similar assurances; (viii) whether compliance with the assurances can be objectively verified through diplomatic or other monitoring mechanisms, including providing unfettered access to the applicant’s lawyers; (ix) whether there is an effective system of protection against torture in the receiving State, including whether it is willing to cooperate with international monitoring mechanisms; (x) whether the applicant has previously been ill-treated in the receiving State; (xi) whether the reliability of the assurances has been examined by the domestic courts of the sending/Contracting State.  350 Ibidem, para. 77. 351 Interview with Ingrid Haussmann, 5th October 2016. 352 The Lithuanian, Polish and Finnish NPM all explained, that they do consider the situation of persons that were surrendered from another EU state during their visits. Although not specifically monitoring persons who were surrendered, and the conditions of surrender agreed, but that inmates with or of another nationality, would form part of ‘vulnerable groups’ that NPMs pays specific attention to when conducting their visits. 95