EXAMPLES OF NPM WORK REGARDING LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS The United Kingdom of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland NPM members work actively to strengthen government policy relevant to the detention settings they monitor and to their own work and mandate. For example, in 2016 the NPM submitted comments to the Law Commission’s consultation on Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty. For more information: Monitoring Places of Detention, Seventh Annual Report of the United Kingdom National Preventive Mechanism51 In Hungary, the State has to submit to the National Preventive Mechanism, ex officio, all draft bills relating to detention conditions during the preparatory stages of the legislative process. For example, as regards the new Act on criminal proceedings, the NPM was able to submit a written opinion and also to participate, on request, in the professional consultations on the Act. In 2016 the NPM was requested by State authorities to review 212 draft bills, including an amendment to Act CCXL of 2013 on the execution of punishments, criminal measures, certain coercive measures and confinement for administrative offences. For more information: Comprehensive Report by the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights on the activities of the OPCAT National Preventive Mechanism in 2016 Opinions, recommendations, proposals and reports NPMs may submit to Governments, Parliaments and any other relevant authorities all opinions, recommendations, proposals and reports on any matters concerning persons deprived of liberty and any other issues within the mandates of the NPMs. Review of detention rules, methods and practices NPMs should systematically review rules on detention, such as interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices, and arrangements for the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty, with a view to preventing torture or ill-treatment. NPMs should examine rules and instructions issued concerning the duties and functions of personnel involved in the custody, interrogation, placement and treatment of persons deprived of their liberty, such as law enforcement personnel, civil or military personnel, medical personnel, other public officials and employees in charge. ÎÎCOOPERATIVE FUNCTIONS NPMs should establish strategies for cooperation and communication with national, regional and international actors on the prevention of torture, including implementation of the recommendations of NPMs and on any urgent action procedures, including the follow-up of cases of suspected torture and of possible reprisals. These strategies should also cover the means of addressing and resolving any operational difficulties encountered during the exercise of their mandates, including the visits, with respect to cooperation and communication. NPMs should consider establishing and maintaining contacts with other NPMs in their respective regions, with a view to sharing experiences and reinforcing effectiveness. 51 See, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uks-national-preventive-mechanism-annual-report-2015-to-2016. 28 I PREVENTING TORTURE: THE ROLE OF NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS – A PRACTICAL GUIDE