Part II: Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation Parliaments). Moreover political instability (as identified by the NPM in Bulgaria) may be an obstacle to cooperating with the Parliament. Cooperation and communication with the Parliament may be achieved through different channels. While the presentation of an annual NPM/Ombudsman report is common, it may not always lead to a fruitful discussion on implementation, in part because the level of detail on the recommendations included in the report varies significantly among NPMs. Thus, the engagement with specialised committees or ‘friendly’ MPs or parliamentary groups may be particularly useful. In general, it was considered that a more targeted and strategic cooperation can be achieved by carrying out a stakeholder analysis and documentation of the MPs responsible and interested in supporting the NPM’s positions. The consulted NPMs however also expressed caution as cooperation with Parliaments could also lead to the actual or perceived politicisation of the NPM, and the topics it brings forward could be used selectively to serve political interests rather than the persons affected. Thus, it was suggested that NPMs should be careful to maintain a professional distance in order to preserve their independence and avoid politicisation. The extent to which these tactics were employed by NPMs in the context of follow-up specifically, however, was difficult to discern from our research. 2.2 Interaction with the Judiciary The interaction with the judiciary remains a challenge for NPMs. While most have recognised the important role of judges in the prevention of torture, there remains a reluctance among some NPMs to cooperate with the judiciary due to perceptions that this may interfere with judicial independence. In some jurisdictions where supervising magistrates or the judiciary have a role in oversight of detention, this provided opportunities for interaction with the NPM. In addition, NPMs have also found ways of engaging with the judiciary, including informing them of the NPM’s activities, and through meetings and participation in events with judges. One NPM invites judges to the final meetings with the prison director, while another has intervened as an expert in judicial proceedings. Moreover, working groups and advisory councils appear to be a useful forum for a regular interaction with the judiciary. Finally, in countries where judges have a visiting mandate, the benefit and necessity of cooperation is self-evident. The need to engage prosecutors has also been mentioned as important by NPMs in some jurisdictions. Overall, there seem to be different ways in which NPMs can cooperate with the judiciary without any risk of interfering with judicial independence. In view of the key role of judges in the prevention of torture such cooperation is moreover necessary. However, most NPMs remain cautious and have expressed the need for guidance from the SPT as well as further discussion on this subject. Although all NPMs acknowledge in general the important role for the judiciary in the prevention of torture and other forms of ill-treatment, many of the NPMs consulted do not have an institutionalised form of communication and cooperation with the judiciary. This was claimed to be due both to reservations on the part of the judiciary to cooperate with NPMs and the NPMs’ fear that interaction would interfere with judicial independence, as well as partly due to the specific mandate of Ombuds institutions, that is restricted to the control of the actions of the executive branch. However, a few NPMs already have experience in cooperating with the judiciary that provide interesting entry points for further reflections on strengthening cooperation. œœ Submission of reports For example in France, the NPM disseminates its annual report to judges including the Supreme Court as well as the appeal courts, to increase the awareness of the work of the NPM. Similarly the German - 68 -