Appendix: If, on the contrary, the NPM’s impact could not be demonstrated, was there a risk of the State reducing the mechanism’s funding ? This was considered unlikely, especially if the assessment revealed that the lack of impact was the result of factors beyond the control of the mechanism; and such a negative assessment might even prove beneficial. For example, if the core problem was found to be an uncooperative attitude on the part of the national authoriites, the effect of the assessment could be to prompt a re-examination of the process of dialogue between the NPM and those authorities. It was added that for certain NPMs at least, the risk of a reduction in their funding could be higher the greater their impact was demonstrated to be! Assessment by whom and when? The importance - and even duty - of assessment of an NPM’s work by the mechanism itself, using inter alia the tools provided by the SPT, was emphasised. That said, assessment by other bodies was also desirable in order to obtain an outside/objective view. Self- assessment and external assessment were seen as complementing each other. As regards self assessment, an NPM should keep its resources and working methods under constant review, as from the outset of its activities. To assess the impact of the results of the NPM’s work was obviously a different matter; time must be allowed for the implementation of the various recommendations made, especially those of a systemic nature. An interval of several years might be required before a valid assessment could be made of the effects in real terms of recommendations formulated by the mechanism. However, the conditions permitting in due course an evaluation of impact should be ensured without delay e.g. appropriate (SMART) formulation of recommendations; a procedure for systematically supervising their implementation, which is made known in advance to the authorities concerned. Those directly concerned by the NPM’s activities (its «stakeholders») should be involved in the selfassessment process. The mechanism should seek the views of the addressees of its reports and recommendations (government departments, management of places visited), of staff in places visited and - as far as possible - of persons deprived of their liberty. Various forms of external assessment were possible. As a public entity, an NPM might well be subject to some form of control by another body (legislature, State audit office) and this could involve an element of impact assessment. For example, in several countries the NPM is obliged to report annually on its activities to the national Parliament, and this can give rise to a debate and conclusions. Similarly, sections of the media may decide at some point to take a close look at the mechanism’s work. And the NPM may itself take the initiative to seek an external assessment of its activities, by an outside consultant, academia or an NGO with expertise in the area of the prevention of ill-treatment. With regard to the evaluation of working methods, some participants attached particular importance to peer review by members of other NPMs. As for the impact of an NPM’s recommendations, it was argued that the department in an Ombudsperson’s Office which is responsible for investigating complaints would be well placed - in view of the information at its disposal - to make an assessment. The general view was that any attempt to gauge the impact of an NPM in the manner defined during the September 2017 Paris meeting - namely «...to assess (as precisely, objectively and scientifically as possible) the effect (in the short, medium and long term; direct or indirect; alone or in combination with other factors) that it has on the changes occurring in its country in the situation of persons deprived of their liberty in terms of the prevention of torture and ill-treatment» - would certainly have to be entrusted to an external actor. An in-depth assessment of this kind by the NPM itself would place far too great a demand on its resources; and it could not be considered as «objective» if performed by the mechanism. Theme 2: What is NPM impact? Participants recognised that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate that persons deprived of their liberty were not being ill-treated as a resuIt of an NPM’s work. Alternative means of gauging the impact of the mechanisms had to be found. 52 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE NPM IN 2018 NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT