On a final note, the CGLPL took part in a regional meeting of NPMs from North Africa, organised by the Association for the Prevention of Torture in Rabat, with the Tunisian and Mauritanian NPMs and members of the Moroccan National Human Rights Council, which is shortly set to be chosen to host the NPM. The Italian NPM also attended. During this interactive meeting, participants went back over the general strategy that a NPM must adopt, as well as the methodological concepts associated with conducting inspections of institutions. 4. Cases referred Article 6 of the Act of 30 October 2007 amended establishing the Chief Inspector of places of deprivation of liberty provides that "any natural person, as well as any legal entity with the task of ensuring respect of fundamental rights, can bring to the attention of the Chief inspector of places of deprivation facts or situations that are likely to come within its remit." Article 6-1 of said Act provides that when natural or legal persons bring facts or situations to the attention of the CGLPL, which they consider to constitute an infringement or risk of infringement of the fundamental rights of persons deprived of liberty, the CGLPL may conduct verifications, on-site if necessary. The inspectors in charge of the referrals, delegated by the Chief Inspector for conducting onsite verifications, benefit from the same prerogatives as at the time of inspections: confidential interviews, access to any useful document necessary for properly understanding the situation brought to the knowledge of the CGLPL and access to all of the facilities. When these inspections have been completed and after having received the observations of the competent authorities with respect to the denounced situation, the Chief Inspector may make recommendations pertaining to the facts or situations to the person responsible for the place of deprivation of liberty concerned. These observations and recommendations may be made public. The time taken to respond to referrals fell significantly in 2016. These time-limits were upheld in 2017. Accordingly, the average response time in 2015 was 68 days. In 2016 this was 52 days, and in 2017, 51 days. It should be noted that the significant increase in case referrals concerning health facilities observed in 2016 has continued, with such referrals now accounting for more than 10% of all letters sent to the Chief Inspector. Similarly, the rise in case referrals from associations has continued in 2017, particularly on the subject of immigration detention. 111