where properly constituted and gathering a wide variety of voices from the defenders community, can use their expertise and legitimacy to signal when draft legislation may not comply with human rights standards. As the information provided by the OSCE Office in Yerevan points out, Armenia’ s human rights defender is “ authorized to provide advisory clarifications and recommendations to the state and local selfgoverning bodies and officials” . In addition, draft laws related to human rights and fundamental freedoms are given to the human rights defender for his or her opinion before they are submitted to the government.211 There is a similar process in Slovakia Before a draft law is deliberated by the government, the bill is discussed with relevant authorities and institutions. The presenter of the bill must ensure that the draft bill is made public on the Internet and that notification of its publication is forwarded to the bodies and institutions concerned with the issue. The draft law may also be forwarded for comments to other public bodies or bodies of self-government, professional organizations, and other institutions. As a result, the public defender of rights and NGOs defending human rights are able to take part in the commenting procedure. The public defender of rights may also use the media to express his concerns with regard to the draft proposal or address the Slovak National Council Committee of Human Rights, Minorities and the Status of Women.212 Joint campaigns with human rights defenders Governments can also co-operate with defenders on particular human rights issues and start joint campaigns to address them. Such campaigns can use the resources, standing, and influence of the government in combination with the expertise and legitimacy of defenders to ensure that campaigns are well-informed, broadly accepted, and effective. France’ s Justice Ministry, the NGO International Observatory of Prisons, and the Office of the Mediator of the French Republic sent a confidential questionnaire to prisoners to gather information about their conditions of imprisonment. The purpose of the questionnaire was to break the silence surrounding prison issues. The information received led to improvements in detention conditions, as well as in cooperation between civil society and the French government.213 Azerbaijan’ s Interior Ministry has also developed a mechanism for constructive co-operation with civil society, notably with representatives of the NGO Committee Against Torture and the ombudsperson responsible for monitoring detention conditions. This NGO and the Ombudsman are allowed to visit any detention centre without prior notice or permission. Full transparency and close co-operation are also reported by international monitoring organizations, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), when monitoring detention facilities.214 Representatives of the CPT visited Russia twice during the reporting period. In addition to meetings with government officials, they also met with defenders. Defenders reported that they often participate in penitentiary-related activities appropriate in order to ensure that these provisions conform to the fundamental principles of human rights; it shall, if necessary, recommend the adoption of new legislation, the amendment of legislation in force and the adoption or amendment of administrative measures.” 211 Information provided by Armenia’ s human rights defender, 28 May 2008. 212 Information provided by Slovakia’ s public defender of rights, 21 May 2008. 213 Information provided by the mediator of the French Republic, 18 June 2008. 214 Information provided by the OSCE Office in Baku, 14 May 2008. 47