Part II: Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation 2.3 Interaction with civil society The cooperation and communication with CSOs is seen as crucial for NPMs, given their important role in the prevention of torture. All NPMs exchange information with CSOs, mostly ad hoc, e.g. before visits, and some NPMs have regular or institutionalised exchange with CSOs, e.g. through periodic meetings, in working groups or in inter-institutional advisory councils. However, it appears that the communication with CSOs has not often been specifically or systematically used to strengthen the implementation of recommendations of the NPM. Civil society encompasses a range of actors including interest groups, professional organisations (e.g. bar associations, medical associations, etc.), research institutes and universities. While some NPMs already exchange regularly with such institutions, the interaction could be strengthened, to benefit from their specific expertise as well as their leverage on promoting NPM recommendations. CSOs are considered to play a very important role in monitoring places of detention, promoting the prevention of torture, providing assistance to torture survivors, among other activities, in many EU member states. Therefore, they can be important actors in the process of following up and advocating that the recommendations of the NPM are implemented. Contrary to article 11(c) OPCAT, which obliges the SPT to cooperate with ‘organisations working towards the strengthening of the protection of persons against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’, the OPCAT does not provide any corresponding obligation on NPMs to cooperate with CSOs. However, in its ‘Analytical self-assessment tool’ the SPT recommends that NPMs ‘should establish sustainable lines of communication’ not only with the relevant ministerial and detention authorities but also CSOs.198 However, the SPT does not go into detail about how this cooperation should be carried out and for what purposes. According to APT, CSOs can serve three important functions: to provide first-hand information on visiting institutions; to promote the NPM’s visibility; and to assume a watchdog role and provide an external scrutiny of the practice of the NPM.199 Strengthening the NPM’s visibility can not only support the NPM in its work in general, but also help to promote awareness of the NPM among the detainee population;200 additionally, the debate about the OPCAT201 can contribute indirectly to follow-up and to implementation of recommendations. In turn, NPMs can also follow-up the findings of CSOs if the latter have themselves visited places of detention. Among the consulted NPMs, cooperation and communication with CSOs was seen as very important, in particular for the exchange of information in the preparation for visits, as it might help NPMs to identify the most problematic penitentiary institutions and thus to strategically plan their visits. Furthermore, the information provided by CSOs was said to be a useful indicator of the implementation of recommendations.202 It is common for all consulted NPMs to exchange information on the situation of detention with CSOs. NPMs are also in the position to advocate for access by CSOs to places of detention. CSOs are also perceived as an important source of information to prepare visits and reports and an important actor to follow-up on the work of the NPM on an individual level by providing e.g. legal or humanitarian assistance to victims, or on a systemic level by advocating for change. This may depend on the manner in which CSOs are able to engage with the NPM, and may differ, for example, for those NPMs which include CSOs as part of the actual NPM (e.g. Slovenia), or whether the NPM has formalised its cooperation in other ways such as through monthly meetings, working groups, etc. Some NPMs have expressed concern about the lack of reliable CSOs with expertise on the prevention of torture SPT, UN Doc CAT/OP/1, para 30. APT, Guide to Establishment and Designation of National Preventive Mechanisms (2006) 69 [hereinafter: APT, Guide (2006)]; APT and IIHR, Implementation Manual (2010) 207. 200 APT, Guide (2006) 69. 201 APT and IIHR, Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture: Implementation Manual (1st edn, 2005) 153. 202 See also APT, Guide (2006) 69. 198 199 - 70 -