Part II: Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation In addition to periodic visits, the authors of this Study would consider that targeted ‘follow-up’ visits with the aim of reviewing measures taken to respond to particular recommendations should also be considered as part of an effective follow-up strategy. If follow-up is carried out as part of the routine monitoring visits there is inevitably a danger that some significant period of time might pass before a further visit is carried out. Such follow-up visits can be a useful and efficient means to focus on particular issues of concern and facilitate the process of implementation. Moreover, they can be performed with little efforts, such as with a reduced timeframe and by only a small visiting delegation. However, internal reflections on the purpose of follow-up visits, its procedure, methodology and outcome would be necessary. 1.2 Written dialogue and exchange of information The written dialogue is the main way of interaction with the authorities for most NPMs, starting with the submission of the visiting report, which forms the main reference for the NPM and the authorities to rely on throughout the follow-up process. It is a key principle, as recommended by the SPT, that the dialogue should be held with both supervisory authorities and institution directors and managers, in order to build trust and jointly develop solutions to improve the treatment of persons in detention. Consequently, sharing the visit reports both with the visited institution and the relevant supervisory body can be considered good practice. In order to ensure a timely exchange of information, a discussion of findings with the visited authorities and an opportunity to check the evidence on which the findings have been based, some NPMs have found the development of preliminary reports to be a useful tool. Moreover, NPMs often request additional information after a visit to complete their reports and some have used surveys, both targeted towards the authorities as well as among the detainees. This is a very useful means to receive specific information in preparation of further follow-up action. The written dialogue may also serve to keep the authorities informed about certain issues. A few NPMs have used thematic reports and circulars as additional means to increase awareness on important issues that also lay the ground for an increased dialogue with the authorities. All NPMs maintain a written dialogue with the authorities, starting with the submission of their findings and recommendations to the authorities. The nature and scope of the written dialogue ranges from simply exchanging the report and seeking replies to exchanging additional information. It also varies in format and focus depending on whether it is aimed at the institution visited or the supervisory authority. In addition, depending on the nature of the issue to be addressed, the written dialogue may also be addressed to a wider range of actors such as parliamentarians, the judiciary, CSOs, or professional bodies (see Part II, Chapter 2). The consulted NPMs followed a clear and established procedure for their written dialogue and for many NPMs it represents the main form of interaction. œœ Communication of the visiting report to the visited institution The authors of this Study underline the importance of the above-mentioned SPT principle that ‘[t]he NPM should maintain a dialogue with both governmental authorities and institution directors/managers regarding the implementation of recommendations.’147 This even more important regarding visits to nonstate places of detention where the link to the competent supervisory state authority is weak and they may otherwise be excluded from any follow-up to the visit. This principle is not followed by all NPMs but for example by the NPMs in Luxembourg, which sends its reports to both the visited institution and the supervisory authorities, and in Croatia, where the NPM makes separate recommendations to the UN Doc CAT/OP/1, para 22. 147 - 51 -