Part III: A systematic change perspective taking persuasive action within a process of dialogue with the authorities in order to have their recommendations implemented. This obviously raises questions regarding the relevant social and political forces which determine the impact NPMs can have and the relative power of NPMs to achieve results. The following issues appear to be relevant: • It is essential to thoroughly analyse the relative power of the NPM, in particular its cultural capital (technical knowledge, argumentative and communication skills, strategising skills) and its symbolic capital (credibility, reputation, institutional basis within state structure).296 A useful tool for doing this could be a SWOT/C (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats/Challenges) analysis of the NPM. • Tailor-made measures to enhance the capital of NPM should be undertaken, both at the organisational level (e.g. strategy development, communications planning) and at the level of individual members (training). Several NPMs have indicated that are well aware of these considerations, if not explicitly, at least intuitively. In particular, there was a keen awareness of the fact that the relative power of NPMs depended on the professionalism in their analysis, the strength of their institutional basis and their reputation as credible and impartial actors. These factors were for example strongly stressed by the French and UK NPMs. Building Block 5: Reflecting on availability and suitability of tools for follow-up action Relevant questions • What are the tools and instruments available to the NPM for achieving the desired change? • What are the strengths and shortcomings of these tools? • Which tools are suitable in the given circumstances for achieving the desired change? In a systematic change perspective, a reflection on the tools and instruments that are available and suitable for achieving the desired change is fundamental. What are the tools at the disposal of NPMs? According to the OPCAT, the main tools are the visits, the reports about the findings and pertinent recommendations as well as the dialogue with the competent authorities. Furthermore, NPMs can submit proposals and observations regarding legislation. The SPT further specifies the tools in its ‘Analytical self-assessment tool’: the dialogue with the competent authorities might be written or oral,297 NPMs shall ‘maintain a dialogue with other relevant national and international actors, including civil society’,298 ‘sustainable lines of communication’299 with all relevant interlocutors shall be established. In addition, the NPMs should establish: a mechanism for communicating and cooperating with the competent authorities, a policy for publicising its reports or parts of it, and a policy regarding thematic reports.300 Also, NPMs should develop a strategy for making its mandate and work known to the general public. While this enumeration covers the main tools, the list is certainly not exhaustive in view of the dynamic nature of the concept of prevention of torture and the resulting need of taking suitable measures to this effect.301 NPMs should develop whatever means they deem adequate for achieving their purpose, in the words of SPT, ‘to maximize [the] preventive potential and impact.’302 For proposals to strengthen the effectiveness of NHRIs see ICHRP, Assessing the Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions (ICHRP and OHCHR 2005) [hereinafter: ICHRP, Assessing the Effectiveness (2005)]. 297 SPT, UN Doc CAT/OP/1, para 22. 298 Ibid para 23. 299 Ibid para 30. 300 Ibid para 31. 301 SPT, UN Doc CAT/OP/12/6, paras 2 and 3. 302 Ibid para 5(e). 296 - 101 -