70 10. Follow-up visit The National Preventive Mechanism should regularly verify the implementation of recommendations, primarily through follow-up visits to problematic institutions, but also based on relevant information from, among others, human rights bodies, governmental institutions, and civil society.208 The follow-up visit is part of the NPM’s activities aimed at preventing the ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty. The primary objective of the follow-up visit is to get information about the measures aimed at the implementation of my recommendations. The secondary objective is to encourage the personnel of the places of detention and the authorities to implement my recommendations.209 In the course of the follow-up visits, I try to check the recommendations made in the report on the previous visit, as well as to re-examine the most problematic fields. Within the frameworks of the follow-up visits, I assess the implementation of measures taken in the interest of eliminating fundamental-rights-related improprieties uncovered during the previous visit and factors threatening the enforcement of fundamental rights. Follow-up visits provide an opportunity to discuss the findings of the previous visit and, in their light, the practical implementation of my measures with the personnel of the places of detention. Since neither the OPCAT nor the Ombudsman Act contains provisions on follow-up-type visits, the general rules apply. 10.1. Selecting the subject of the follow-up visit While performing the tasks of the NPM, I have conducted two follow-up visits. The locations for the follow-up visits were selected based on the impressions of previous visits, keeping in mind the following criteria. The first location, the Juvenile Penitentiary Institution was selected because, during the first visit, the visiting delegation had found signs of serious ill-treatment or the threat thereof affecting a large group of detainees.210 On the other hand, the follow-up visit was paid to an institution that, due to renovation works, had been operating on temporary premises at the time of the first inspection. In this case, the follow-up visit’s objective was to find out to what extent my recommendations made as regards the temporary premises and the treatment of detainees had been implemented after moving back to the permanent premises.211 In 2017, while performing the tasks of the NPM, I made a follow-up visit to the Platán Integrated Social Institution of Bács-Kiskun County.212 10.2. Planning and preparing a follow-up visit The follow-up visits are preceded by a written consultation with the detention authority, in the course of which I analyze and evaluate the responses received from the addressees of the recommendations made in my report. In this consultation, if necessary, I also involve civil organizations or authorities See Clause 33 of the SPT’s Analytical assessment tool for national preventive mechanisms, (CAT/OP/1/Rev. 1). See: BIRK Moriz, ZACH Gerrit, LONG Debra, MURRAY Rachel, SUNTINGER Walter: Enhancing impact of National Preventive Mechanisms, Strengthening the follow-up on NPM Recommendations in the EU: Strategic Development, Current Practices and the way forward. Ludwig Boltzmann Institute & University of Bristol, May 2015, p. 10 Available at http://www.bristol.ac.uk/medialibrary/sites/law/hric/2015-documents/NPM%20Study_final.pdf 210 See Report № AJB-1423/2015 on the first visit and Report № AJB-685/2017 on the follow-up inspection 211 See my report № AJB-3772/2017 on the follow-up visit to the Platán Integrated Social Institution of Bács-Kiskun County 212 For the major findings of the follow-up visit, see Chapter “Persons deprived of their liberty at the places of detention visited by the NPM” 208 209