Part I: Basis for an effective follow-up remedy the wrongful situation caused by its services.’ Thus sometimes the competent authority may be the administrator of the institution concerned; at other times it may be best to direct the recommendation to a particular ministry or individual within the executive or to the legislature. In the UK it has been noted that the NPM needs to be clear in setting out who its recommendations are for, and therefore who is responsible and accountable for giving a response.100 NPMs should therefore have flexibility to decide for themselves who are the competent authorities to receive particular recommendations at any one time. In general a close and regular channel of communication with specific authorities was seen as a way to create partnerships and engage the competent authorities. Generally, clarity in the formulation, the objectives sought, the authorities addressed, make recommendations more likely to be achieved. The NPM, keeping in mind the long-term changes to be accomplished, should consider recommendations as tools to be handed to the relevant authorities, who are more likely to understand and implement them if they are precise, realistic and argued. Obviously, this is not always clear-cut in practice. The way NPMs practically deal with addressing their reports and recommendations to the targeted addressees, is outlined in more detail in Part II, Chapter 1.2. Testing the robustness of findings There was consensus among the NPMs consulted that it is important to involve the visiting delegation in the drafting process, as those who personally visited the detention facility will have direct observations that are useful when drafting the report, including the recommendations. Furthermore it was also considered crucial that visit reports and their recommendations need to be produced following a system that ensures the findings have been ‘tested’, are accurate and truly reflect the situation observed. Accordingly, some NPMs stressed the importance of rigorous discussion among the visiting delegation and other colleagues, when drafting their findings and assertions to ensure that the observations and recommendations can stand up to scrutiny and can be justified.101 It was considered that this strengthened the legitimacy and credibility of the recommendations and helped to build confidence in the work and output of NPMs For example, HMIP of the UK NPM has established a ‘challenge procedure’ whereby the findings of each inspector are open to scrutiny and discussion by their colleagues. The procedure that has been established has a number stages within the course of an inspection when the findings are tested. Initially daily debriefs are held by each team. As noted in the Guide for Inspectors, in the daily debrief ‘[e]ach member of the team has an individual responsibility to feed back their findings in a confidential forum with colleagues and be open to challenge, as well as to challenge others. Testing, defending and validating evidence against others will ensure a robust validation process throughout the inspection.’102 The information given at this point can help to direct further investigation and sometimes inspectors may go back to reassess their findings.103 Subsequently, the initial findings, together with other information, is provided to the Chief or Deputy Inspector who completes a tour of the establishment.104 Following this, a ‘deliberation meeting’ is held between the Chief or Deputy Director and the visiting team. The aim of the meeting is to agree the main findings. Each inspector is expected to explain their judgements and also comment on each other’s in a process of constructive dialogue.105 In this process it is stressed that it is ‘important that these assessments are supported by evidence, as not only will they be fed back during the debrief […] and appear in the published inspection report, they will also be used to identify the ‘risk’ level of the establishment and consequently the timing of a subsequent inspection.’106 The process is a non See UK NPM and HRIC, ‘The UK NPM at Five Years’ 4 <https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/ uploads/sites/4/2014/07/6-415_NPM_5_year_event_write_up_final.pdf>. 101 The Netherlands and the UK. 102 UK, HMIP, A Guide for Inspectors (2013) para 2.79. 103 Ibid para 2.80. 104 Ibid para 2.86. 105 Ibid paras 2.88-90. 106 Ibid para 2.91. - 41 100