Part II: Tools for an effective follow-up and implementation œœ Publication of urgent recommendations and press releases In view of the delay in publication visit reports some NPMs release a statement immediately after the visit, before the publication of the report. For example the NPM in Portugal issues a press release directly after individual visits if it seems useful to address some preliminary issues. The French NPM, after a twoweek period for the authorities to reply, publishes urgent recommendations and the authorities’ reply (if available) in case of particularly disturbing findings. This procedure has been used five times since the French NPM came into existence in 2006248 and has enabled immediate follow-up action by the NPM, and a follow-up by NGOs and their lawyers, e.g. by bringing the matter to court. The publication of urgent reports and recommendations also creates media attention that might shape public opinion and thus prompt the authorities to implement recommendations quickly, e.g. to address a particularly disturbing situation, while at the same time it gives CSOs the possibility to exert pressure on the authorities. œœ Direct appeals to the press or warnings regarding non-implementation Few NPMs use specific tools in cases of continued non-implementation of recommendations. The Croatian Ombudsman may, if recommendations are not followed and measures not implemented within a given deadline, ‘appeal to the public’. 249 The Ombudsman may also publish ‘warnings, notices, requests and recommendations’ by means of public communication and the institutions in charge are obliged to publish the recommendations as well.250 So far it has however not utilised any of these measures. The NPM in Slovenia can issue press releases or publicise the failure to comply ‘in mass media at the expense of the body if the latter, after a repeated requirement, has not adequately responded to his [the Ombudsman’s] proposals or recommendations’.251 In the past it has presented concrete findings from NPM visits at press conferences in order to generate bigger media attention and put pressure on the authorities. According to the Slovenian NPM the threat of going public has proved effective in prompting a response by the ministry on occasion. However, the response by the authorities was often not more than a generic acceptance of all recommendations rather than a detailed consideration of each. The German NPM also had a similar experience where the involvement of the press has led to recommendations being considered at a higher level, and eventually to their implementation. Today all visit reports are made public and the NPM stated that ‘it seems that the announcement in the report that its content will be made public, induces authorities to reply and discuss our recommendations. So far, there is no report which has not been answered at all.’ œœ Further public relations activities Although publication of visits reports can be a useful means to increase awareness, it is not sufficient in ensuring that the report reaches all key stakeholders. However, only a few NPMs consulted have conducted activities beyond the publication of the reports and the providing of responses to the press. The NPM in Luxembourg not only presents all its reports to the press and does press releases, but through good contacts with the media makes sure that important topics are being shown in the evening news which are viewed by a large number of citizens and influence newspapers to take up the topic. The Austrian Ombudsman has recently established a working group on public relations of the NPM where the publication of NPM findings, the use of the website and dealing with the media will be discussed among the heads of the visiting Commissions and the responsible Ombudsman representatives. For a list of the urgent recommendation of the French NPM see <http://www.cglpl.fr/rapports-et-recommandations/ dernieres-recommandations/>. 249 Croatia, Ombudsman Act, art 7. 250 Ibid. 251 Slovenia, Ombudsman Act, art 40. 248 - 83 -