plan of activities that should be implemented by the National Preventive Mechanism; b) on the working methodology; c) on thematic research; d) on professional training of members of the National Preventive Mechanism; e) on other strategic documents of the National Preventive Mechanism; f) on other important issues for the efficient functioning of the National Preventive Mechanism. The opinion of the Council is of a consultative nature. The invited members of the Council facilitate communication of the National Preventive Mechanism with academic circles, donor organizations, and other stakeholders. Besides of the representatives of the PDO, the members of the Council are also invited experts, which can be: a) a person who conducts educational/academic activities in the field related to the mandate of the National Preventive Mechanism; b) a member of an international organization who works in the field of prevention of torture and criminal justice; c) a member of an international nongovernmental organization who works in the field of prevention of torture and criminal justice; d)a member of a local non-governmental organization who works in the field of prevention of torture and criminal justice.8 During 2017, NPM’s Advisory Council held two meetings. Members of the Council were provided with the information on past and future activities of the NPM; they expressed own opinions and recommendations for better functioning of NPM. 2.3.2. WORKING METHODOLOGY The NPM worked extensively for reviewing and updating working methodology. To that end, several meetings and events were held, new monitoring instruments were prepared and members of the Special Preventive Group were trained. In 2017, two working meetings were held within the framework of the EU project “Support to the Public Defender’s Office II”, which was attended by representatives of the Department of Prevention and Monitoring of the Public Defender’s Office and the NHRI Adviser of the Association for the Prevention of Torture, Ben Buckland. The topics of discussion at the first working meeting were the strengths and weaknesses of the existing system of follow-up to recommendations. Participants of the meeting discussed the possible ways of addressing the challenges. Based on the results of the working meeting, invited expert - Ben Buckland drafted needs assessment document, which served as a basis for making a follow-up system more effective and flexible. The topics of discussion at the second working meeting were about the need for a common strategy for advocacy and control on the implementation of recommendations, possible formats of dialogue with 8 For details on Advisory Council of the NPM, please see: http://www.ombudsman.ge/en/prevenciis-erovnulimeqanizmi/prevenciis-erovnuli-meqanizmis-sakonsultacio-sabcho/about-advisory-council-of-the-nationalpreventive-mechanism.page [last seen: 12.06.2018]. 8