Part II: Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation The advantages of a good cooperation and communication with professional organisations are evident for NPMs. However, such cooperation and lines of communication appear in some jurisdictions to be not very well developed and considerations on which relevant organisations exist in a country and how the experiences and expertise can be used for the NPM’s work would be highly useful. Furthermore there is a lack of clarity on the extent to which such contacts and relationships are used specifically with respect to follow-up on recommendations. 2.4 Inter-institutional advisory bodies Few NPMs have inter-institutional advisory bodies that evaluate their work and can provide advice on specific issues when requested, but do not play a specific role in advising and consulting on the implementation of recommendations. However, the participation of different state actors allows for a useful forum for coordination and together with the expertise of non-state actors, efficient and realistic steps for the implementation of recommendations could be jointly developed. The linkage to the different levels of state and civil society provide the NPM with excellent entry points for coordination and leverage to achieve change. Some countries have established advisory bodies to their NPM that are composed of state and non-state actors. Although it is acknowledged that to date these bodies have not been involved in follow-up activities, due to the inter-institutional composition and involvement of key decision-makers and stakeholders they have the potential to be useful in promoting implementation. The Austrian Ombudsman Board for example is supported by a Human Rights Advisory Council (HRAC), composed by a chairperson, a deputy chairperson and 32 members, 16 being nominated by ministries and the Länder (states) and 16 by NGOs. While it does not form part of the NPM, it can provide advice in all areas of the NPM’s activities, particularly in determining monitoring priorities as well as providing background analyses and legal opinions on human rights questions. Currently, the HRAC does not play a particular role in the follow-up process. It does not have access to visiting protocols or the communication between the NPM and the authorities on the follow-up to recommendations. The lack of involvement of the HRAC in the follow-up processed has been criticised by civil society experts who consider that this body is in an ideal position to foster dialogue between civil society and government representatives on implementation and to develop realistic and targeted solutions that would meet with acceptance by the authorities.214 The previous advisory and monitoring body of the police, that was in place before the NPM came into existence, had established a permanent working group that continuously evaluated the implementation of recommendations and published an annual account of the status of implementation and an explanation when a recommendation was not fully implemented. Similarly, the Portuguese Ombudsman is assisted by a Consultative Council composed of representatives of the parliamentary Commission of Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Judicial Council, the Supreme Council of the Public Prosecutors, the Portuguese Lawyers Bar Association, the Medical Association and the Psychologist Association, three individuals ‘of recognized ethical and civic status’ and two NGO representatives. Its main competences are to evaluate the activities of the NPM, namely reviewing visiting protocols and the annual report and by recommending visits. Although it is not specifically intended to discuss and follow-up on recommendations it could do so, especially as regards a specific subject. These experiences suggest that it could be useful to reflect on how inter-institutional advisory bodies could be specifically used to consult and promote the follow-up action of the NPMs. If effective these could eventually be a good practice example for an institutionalised and targeted exchange between the key actors in the field of torture prevention. 214 See also BIM, Official opinion regarding the establishment of the NPM submitted to Parliament on 4 July 2011 <http:// www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXIV/SNME/SNME_06859/imfname_224762.pdf>. - 73 -