Appendix: The degree of attention paid to an NPM’s activities by the media and by the public at large (for example, on the publication of a visit report or the mechanism’s annual report) was a factor to be considered in any assessment of the mechanism’s impact. And what conclusions should be drawn if public opinion (for example, about conditions in prisons) was/remained out of step with the recommendations made by the NPM ? It was argued in this context that an NPM which lost the backing of the general public risked losing in turn the support of the authorities, with all the implications that this could have in terms of resources. That said, public opinion in most european countries was at best indifferent to the treatment of prisoners (as distinct from certain other categories of persons deprived of their liberty, such as psychiatric patients or the elderly and children held in social care facilities). It would be demanding a great deal to assess an NPM on the basis of its capacity to change this general attitude. For certain participants, it was also important to keep in mind the potentially negative impact that an NPM could have on NGOs in the country concerned. In particular, if non- governmental organisations were closely associated with the operation of the NPM (i.e. a public body), this might have the effect of tempering their activism and thereby reduce their contribution to the overall goal of prevention of illtreatment. Theme 3: How to measure impact? The discussion focussed on trying to identify indicators in relation to various criteria/objectives : internal performance of the NPM; application of its recommendations; the coverage/resonance of the NPM’s activities in the public arena; improvement in practice of the situation of detained persons. As regards the internal performance of an NPM (its authority and credibility), many of the key points had already been mentioned during the discussion of theme 2. Reference was also made to the observation grid prepared by the association NPM Obs. and which had been widely circulated among NPMs; it provided many examples of possible indicators in relation to internal performance. It was noted that one important test of a mechanism’s impact was its capacity - and determination - to respond rapidly to urgent situations involving a heightened risk of ill-treatment; in such cases, the action of the NPM could be preventive in a very immediate sense. Whether an NPM’s recommendations are translated into reality is clearly central to the mechanism’s impact. The emphasis here should be on a qualitative rather than a quantitative analysis; precisely to what extent has each recommendation been complied with and, most importantly, what remains to be done to achieve the desired outcome ? This implies the existence of a clearly-defined and rigorous system for monitoring compliance with the recommendations: requirement for the authorities to respond within a deadline; written/face-to-face dialogue with the authorities; verification of progress during follow-up visits; in-depth review at regular intervals (e.g. three years) of action taken to implement recommendations of a systemic nature. And faced with the rejection or only partial implementation of a recommendation, does the NPM take appropriate action to mobilise other forces ? If the recommendation concerns a precise and institutionspecific issue, are other bodies which are empowered to visit/monitor the place concerned alerted to the matter (for example, a supervisory judge) ? If the recommendation relates to a more far reaching - perhaps systemic - issue, are there established channels of communication with parliamentary bodies or civil society actors ? Similarly, does the NPM make appropriate use of possibilities to instigate proceedings before the courts for the purpose of pursuing the implementation of its recommendations, or to associate itself with relevant legal proceedings instigated by others ? Particular emphasis was placed on the role that Constitutional Courts can play in certain countries in terms of the implementation of an NPM’s recommendations. And is consideration given to seeking the support of international monitoring bodies (SPT, CPT)? Obviously, the greater the implication of others in pursuing the issue addressed in a recommendation, the more remote will become the responsibility of the NPM for the end result. However, bringing about change will often not be possible without the support of other actors, and the impact of the NPM in such cases could be seen as the action of mobilising that support. 54 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