NPM Toolkit

Many NPMs have the right to take photos or videos during their visits to places of deprivation of liberty. These can be useful, including as a memory aid when writing reports. They can also be a powerful communication tool. Nevertheless, some important caveats need to be kept in mind: 

First, when taking pictures or videos, NPMs should make sure that detainees and detention staff cannot be identified in them. If material is collected that shows people’s faces, or personal items that could be used to identify them, these should be stored securely and not be used in any external communications. This applies to photographs of registers or custody records that show people’s names or other personal details. 

Second, when taking photos or video, NPMs must obtain informed consent from the people who are photographed or filmed, even if they are not identifiable. This means introducing yourself, explaining who you are, why you are taking photographs or video and what it will be used for. It also means being mindful that, for many persons in situations of vulnerability, consent is a fraught issue. In many detention contexts, it may be better to not take photos or record video at all. 

Third, the ‘do no harm’ principle should be the guide in situations where it is unclear whether or not it is okay to take a picture or record a video.

Fourth, if NPM staff or experts use their own phones or cameras to take pictures or record video during visits, the NPM’s internal rules should clearly describe how this information is stored or used. Transferring material from a personal device so it can be stored centrally (and then deleted from the personal devices) is a good practice. 

Fifth, detention staff may have legitimate concerns about safety and security in relation to photos or videos that show particular places, people or processes. While NPMs should maintain their independence in deciding what to record, giving careful consideration to these concerns is an important part of building and maintaining trust with authorities.

Photographs and videos can be a powerful way to highlight issues in relation to the material conditions of detention. However, they are less likely to illustrate other complex detention issues. As with the overall approach to communication, being clear on the NPM’s objectives, and then selecting the best visual or written approach to convey the NPM’s key messages, will likely provide the most effective results. 

The audience for different NPM communication will depend on the objectives and the content of those initiatives. However, there are several broad categories. 

The general public is an important audience when the NPM’s objectives are to raise awareness of a particular issue or create political pressure for change. This audience might be particularly relevant at times when the NPM has reached the limits of dialogue with the authorities. 

The media are both an audience and a conduit to engage the public. As such, engagement with the media by NPMs should be based on clear objectives and a clear strategy. They should also consider questions such as: Who are we trying to reach? What message do we want to share? What are we asking for? 

NPMs may also wish to communicate with the authorities, including the police, prison officers or others, outside the context of dialogue. As mentioned above, this is especially the case at the beginning of the NPM’s mandate or when visiting a new category of place where people are detained. 

NPMs may wish to communicate specifically with detainees, including on the main findings of their reports or particular recommendations, to help them understand the NPM mandate and why it is useful. This might include providing reports to prison libraries or taking time during visits to explain and discuss the NPM’s mandate and work. 

Civil society, international and regional bodies, and the SPT are all also key audiences for NPM communication. They are dealt with in their own tools. 

Finally, NPMs may wish to communicate with other NPMs, including to share findings, gather information or seek advice. 

NPMs have a number of different communication channels available to them. 

The NPM website is the first and most important tool for NPM communication. This will be either a standalone website or, for NHRIs as NPMs, a subsection of the institutional website. For multiple body NPMs it may be useful to have a single website to present their collective work. NPM websites should include information about the structure, mandate and powers of the institution, NPM staff and leadership, and the NPM’s public reports and recommendations. For NPMs that have been in operation for a long period of time, it is particularly important to ensure that visitors can quickly find reports and recommendations that relate to specific themes or institutions.   

Social media, including Twitter, Facebook and video sharing websites, can help NPMs reach a wider audience, although it can be challenging to communicate complex issues and ideas effectively. Some NPMs that are active on social media found it to be very useful – including for direct interaction with detainees and detainee families, something that enabled some NPMs to conduct a sort of “remote monitoring” during the COVID-19 pandemic. NPMs should think carefully about their objectives and the time and resources required before engaging on different platforms. 

Mailing lists are another communications tool that allow NPMs to keep a large number of interested people up-to-date on their work with minimal effort, via regular electronic bulletins or emails that share project updates and findings from key reports or activities. 

When publicising a specific thematic report, for example, NPMs may consider additional communication initiatives, such as a conference, workshop or roundtable that brings together key stakeholders to discuss and consider the main findings. 

NPMs may also communicate directly with the media, through press releases, interviews or by providing “background information” to trusted journalists. As previously mentioned, it is important that NPMs are clear about their objectives when engaging with the media and are equally aware that these are likely to be different from a journalist’s objectives. Dealing with this challenge requires a clear strategy and, potentially, creating alliances with particular media outlets or journalists who are supportive of the NPM’s work and preventive approach. 

While there is no one-size-fits-all answer to who should talk on behalf of the NPM, the important point is that this should be set out clearly in the NPM’s internal rules and understood by everyone involved. In particular, it is important to clarify who, and at what level, is authorised to talk to the media on behalf of the NPM. 

It may also be important to develop clear rules around personal social media,  including what from visits can be shared. 

NPMs should be mindful of issues around access and accessibility of their communication. This includes ensuring that their materials are in a form that can be accessed and understood by different audiences, including groups in situations of vulnerability. This might mean: 

• Publishing translations in minority or indigenous languages 
• Providing video or audio resources with key information 
• Publishing reports in Microsoft Word format, so that they can be “read” by text to speech and translation software, and 
• Making time to meet and talk with those who might not have access to the NPM’s website and other communication channels, including detainees. 

NPMs will communicate on a range of topics. 

In the period following their establishment, NPMs may wish to focus on explaining the NPM role, mandate and powers with detaining authorities, detainees, civil society organisations and the public. As part of this approach, it may be important to clearly explain what the preventive approach is (and is not). 

How much detail NPMs go into about their mandate will depend on the audience. For detaining authorities it might be necessary to provide a detailed explanation of the NPM mandate so that they have a clear understanding of what it means in practice. Some new NPMs, for example, have held workshops in different regions of the country where they used presentations, role plays and case studies as communication tools to help police, prison officers and others to understand their mandate, powers and way of working. 

For NHRIs as NPMs, initial communication might include explaining how the NPM’s preventive mandate is different from the other mandates of the NHRI, such as complaint handling. 

It might also be useful for the NPM to communicate its initial plans and objectives, including any thematic priorities or particular places it will focus on. 

Once the NPM is conducting preventive visits and publishing reports and recommendations, communication may be useful in relation to the key findings and recommendations from its visits. This might include publication of reports and summaries of the key points. This will be especially important in relation to major milestones, such as thematic or annual reports. 

Some NPMs report that they receive calls from the media following each visit, with journalists keen to know the details of what they found. NPMs need to be careful when responding to such requests and make sure that whatever they communicate is linked to their organisational objectives – which may be very different from those of the media. 

NPMs need to be careful to respect the confidentiality of information they gather in places of detention, especially if there is the potential it may risk exposing individuals to reprisals. 

Sharing certain information may also put the ongoing NPM dialogue with the authorities at risk. Such dialogue is based on trust and NPMs should be careful about what they communicate in relation to discussions that take place behind closed doors. 

Finally, NPMs should carefully consider what (if anything) to communicate on individual cases or specific instances where serious human rights violations have been found. In some cases, going public with their findings may be necessary to spur urgent action by the authorities. However, making a situation public can also place individuals at risk of reprisals or other harm. Each situation must be considered on its merits, balancing the potential risks against the need to drive change. And, as in all their work, the ‘do no harm’ principle should guide NPM decision making with regards to how and what it communicates. 

First, communication can help NPMs achieve their objectives to promote change in places of detention. This can include raising public awareness of particular issues and helping foster the political will needed to bring about change. Communication in relation to NPM objectives in detention goes hand in hand with dialogue with the authorities. 

Second, effective communication underpins how NPMs are viewed and understood by others. It can help establish the NPM’s reputation and create trust. This can be achieved by communicating about the NPM mandate, powers and methods of work. But it will also happen more subtly, through the overall tone and content of NPM communications and via the ways and times it chooses to communicate. 

When preparing a communication strategy, NPMs should keep in mind that communication takes time and resources and that communicating about everything they do is likely to be less effective than communicating in a focused manner to achieve specific objectives. 

Strategic communication is about connecting with the people who can help make change happen. To be effective, communication must have a clear purpose, which helps the NPM meet its broader objectives. 

The first question to guide any communication activity is: why are we communicating? The answer may be: to inform, to persuade, to start a conversation, or to build trust and credibility, among others. The purpose should always be linked to a key operational or strategic objective of the NPM.

The next step is to develop the right messages and then share them in the right way, with the right audience. For the purposes of this toolkit, we mean external communication with a wider audience, distinct from the NPM’s more formal and confidential dialogue with the authorities around the implementation of recommendations.

The messages NPMs may wish to communicate will evolve over time, depending on the stage of their development. Newly-established NPMs, for example, may need to focus on raising awareness of their mandate and role. More established NPMs might focus on public advocacy around particular thematic priorities or other areas of their work. 

The way NPMs communicate will vary depending on their objective and the audience they wish to engage. They might communicate directly with the media, through press releases, interviews and public statements; they might publish reports, findings and recommendations via the NPM website or on social media; or they may host community dialogues or roundtables. 

The audience that NPMs target will vary depending on the objective they seek to achieve. Strategic communication might engage, for example: the media, civil society organisations (e.g.with a health, justice, human rights or related focus) and international or regional partners. These are different audiences from what we might call the NPM’s “core” stakeholders, which include the authorities, other oversight bodies with related mandates, and members of civil society advisory groups, among others. 

To be effective, communication initiatives should be developed in conjunction with the NPM's broader strategy development and operational planning.