38 5. Visits conducted by the NPM In 2016, I received all documents required for the performance of the tasks of the NPM within the statutory time-limit. 5.2.5. Concluding the visit In 2016, the timespan of the NPM’s visits ranged between four hours and three days. Each visit was concluded with an immediate debriefing, stressing partnership, with the representatives of the place of detention.76 During the debriefing, the members of the visiting delegation summarize their experiences of the visit, the documents they inspected or made copies of, and present a list of further documents that the staff of the place of detention has to provide to the NPM. In the course of the debriefing, the members of the visiting delegation share their positive and negative impressions regarding treatment and detention conditions with the head of the institution, which promotes best practices and facilitates the earliest solution of individual problems. 5.2.6. Processing and evaluating the experiences and information received in the course of the visits The members of the visiting delegation process together their experiences and impression obtained at the visited place of detention. This exchange may make them identify situations that might result in difficulties and the reactions thereto. Visiting various types of places of detention meeting children and adults who are deprived, albeit to various extent, of their liberty, may be taxing even in the absence of circumstances indicative of ill-treatment. Joint analytic sessions, in addition to helping the members of the visiting delegation to preserve their psychological health, increase the efficiency of future visits through pointing out the causes and effects of decisions made on the spot. The head of the delegation prepares for me a short memo on the most important lessons learned at the visited place of detention. My colleagues visiting the Children’s Home were taken by surprise by the fact that the staff members of the institution, in clear violation of their obligation to cooperate stipulated in Section 25, Subsection (1) of the Ombudsman Act, had created a situation preventing them from interviewing the children living in the Home. Summing up the visit’s lessons raised the question whether it was enough to record the staff ’s failure to cooperate in the report on the inspection and to highlight it 76 See Analytical assessment tool for national preventive mechanism, Clause 27.