NPM Toolkit

NPMs work to drive change in deprivation of liberty systems. Sometimes the necessary changes relate to what is occurring within places of deprivation of liberty themselves. However, very often the underlying causes of problems are to do with things that are outside the place itself. These might include issues relating to institutional culture; regulations or lack of thereof; laws and policies; and issues in society more generally (including a culture of discrimination against particular groups). 

This is why NPM recommendations for change should not only target what happens in specific places of detention but also the broader legal and policy environment of the country. 

By policy, we mean the objectives or courses of action pursued by the authorities on a given topic. Policy can be both high level – for example the overall strategic direction and objectives set by a responsible ministry (for example on how healthcare in prison is allocated, managed and funded), as well as operational level – for example the rules of procedure and operating manuals that govern the day-to-day work of staff within a particular sector or type of establishment (for example, how they carry out body searches and use restraints or force in practice). 

By laws, we mean provisions and rules of conduct or actions that are prescribed, enacted, and/or enforced by recognised authorities (such as legislatures and/or executive or judicial entities). Laws can be national, federal and local and can be called: acts, legislation, decrees, and bills, among other things, depending on the context. 

Government policies and legislation are relevant to the work and functioning of NPMs in two ways: 

First, laws and policies set the framework for all aspects of deprivation of liberty, including the number, treatment, and situation of persons who are deprived of liberty – all of which rest at the core of NPM’s substantive mandates. Of particular significance are laws and policies in the areas of human rights and torture prevention, non-discrimination, criminal justice and crime prevention, corrections, policing and law enforcement practices, mental health, and children’s rights, among others. 

Second, the NPMs have the mandate to engage at legal and policy level, granted by Article 19 of the OPCAT (see paragraph below).

Finally, NPMs are themselves established by, and operate in accordance with, their legislative mandates. NPM legislation, together with its underlying policies, is fundamental to determining the scope of its powers, its operational and financial independence, and ultimately its effectiveness. This means that NPMs may choose to push for changes in law and policy affecting both deprivation of liberty and with the aim of strengthening their own institutions. 

Strong and effective domestic laws and policies that comply with international and regional standards are a key and foundational component of effective torture prevention in practice. For this reason, any NPM seeking to be a driver of change must engage with the relevant policy and legal frameworks. This engagement will be built on the findings of their preventive visits and their analysis of the risks factors and root causes leading to ill-treatment. 

NPMs are uniquely placed to promote and foster systemic and sustainable changes in support of torture prevention. Not only can they gather first-hand information from inside places of deprivation of liberty. As noted above, the OPCAT also grants them the power to make recommendations to relevant authorities, and to submit proposals and observations on existing or draft legislation (Article 19). The authorities themselves are bound by the OPCAT to enter into dialogue with the NPM on the substance of these recommendations. 

Furthermore, NPMs’ unique approach, rooted in interviews and observations made during regular visits to places of deprivation of liberty and an analytical capacity based on multidisciplinary expertise gives them the ability to understand the complex risk factors that make torture and ill-treatment more likely. These risk factors include particular moments (such as the first hours of police custody), groups in situations of vulnerability, particular places, and particular practices that put people at heightened risk. The underlying reasons why all of these risks exist may lie in policies and in law.   

Based on their understanding of the changes needed, there are a number of ways that NPMs can contribute to law and policy frameworks that uphold the dignity of those deprived of liberty. These may include: 

• Submitting proposals and observations concerning existing or draft legislation. In this regard, a number of NPMs (particularly those that are NHRIs) have specific wording in their founding legislation that requires the authorities to send them relevant draft legislation for comments and inputs. This may also involve participation in specific committees or legislative review processes or providing input to ad hoc government commissions established to address specific problems or themes. 
• NPMs can also submit proposals and observations on policy. NPMs might be invited to participate in formal policy review processes but, even outside these processes, they can often promote change by engaging directly with the government agency that oversees the policy at hand. This might mean, for example, making recommendations and entering into dialogue with the national police academy in order to change police training on the use of force. 
• Many NPMs also use their thematic and annual reports to highlight specific issues and to make recommendations aimed at addressing the legislative and policy-related aspects of different problems they have identified in their work. Presenting their annual report to parliament, as many NPMs have the power to do, can be an important way to engage with and raise awareness among parliamentarians of the changes to law and policy that are needed. Over time, this can also help NPMs to build a relationship with key parliamentarians, which may help them to drive legislative change relevant to their mandates. 
• NPMs may also wish to engage in public advocacy around key legislative and policy priorities in their work. Either alone or as part of coalitions or civil society and other actors. This can involve thematic reports, as mentioned, as well as press conferences, op-eds and engagement with the media. 
• A small number of NPMs also submit Amicus briefs in relation to court cases that are relevant to their work – particularly when they involve a particular precedent. 

Thinking about the policy and legal dimensions of the changes NPMs would like to see should form part of their everyday work. 

This includes at the preparatory stage of each visit, as part of the background research that happens before each visit. It also includes after visits when they analyse their findings. Making these changes happen, however, requires that NPMs dedicate time and resources to the different aspects discussed above. This may include making it the responsibility of specific staff members to monitor legislative developments or to engage with policymakers or parliamentarians. 

For NPMs that are NHRIs, the task may be simplified by the existence of specific legal, policy and communications departments or staff within the institution who monitor policy and legal developments, that NPMs can leverage to help push for the changes they’ve identified. 

To promote change in law and policy, NPMs may need to work with a range of actors beyond those directly in charge of places of deprivation of liberty. Some examples may include: 

• Identifying and engaging with members of parliament and their staffing who are sympathetic to particular issues. 
• Engaging directly with the courts and the judiciary 
• Partnering with CSOs on thematic advocacy priorities 
• Submitting shadow reports or other information to international processes and bodies. 

The annual report is an essential communication tool. It helps to make the NPM mandate and work better known and understood by a broad audience, including non-specialists and the media. The target audience of the report can therefore be quite large. Many actors may have an interest in NPM activities, including national civil society organisations, as well as organizations working specifically on torture prevention and detention issues, academic researchers, bar associations, practitioners working in relevant areas, and persons deprived of their liberty and their relatives.

At the global level, many institutions, in particular the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) and other NPMs, will have an interest in NPM activities.

Nevertheless, the primary target of NPM annual reports should be the national authorities to whom the recommendations are addressed, including the three branches of government (the executive, legislative and judicial) and “operational” authorities in charge of detention facilities.

Prior to embarking on the drafting of its annual report, it is therefore key for the NPM to agree internally on the main target audience and to adapt the style and format of the report accordingly. A key consideration, when defining the format of those reports, is their readability and accessibility (for example publication in an accessible format for persons with visual impairments), bearing in mind that the audience for such reports can be very broad. 

As the name suggests, preventive visits aim at preventing torture and other forms of ill-treatment. The OPCAT clarifies that these visits shall be undertaken “with a view to strengthening, if necessary, the protection of persons [deprived of their liberty] against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (Art.19.a) and “with the aim of improving the treatment and the conditions of the persons deprived of their liberty” (Art.19.b).

In more concrete terms, a preventive visit can be understood as any visit to a place of deprivation of liberty, with the objective of identifying root causes of ill-treatment and other human rights problems, understanding systemic issues and finding ways to address them. Preventive visits do not seek to react to specific incidents or allegations, but rather to ensure that the environment itself is less likely to give rise to such incidents and allegations. They are therefore proactive and can take place at any time, even when there is no apparent problem.

The emphasis of preventive visits is on the place of detention understood as a system rather than on the individual, while the ultimate goal is to improve the protection of all individuals against torture and other ill-treatment and, more generally, to ensure their rights and dignity are respected. Preventive visits are part of an ongoing and constructive dialogue with relevant authorities, to improve the detention system over the long term.

Preventive visits can be in-depth, thematic, ad hoc, or aim to follow-up on previous visits.

Although the OPCAT refers to the state’s obligation to disseminate NPM reports, in practice it is a task that is performed by the NPM. The NPM should therefore guarantee that it receives and allocates sufficient funds, time and personnel every year to publish and disseminate the report, including to the authorities and other interested parties.

The NPM should adopt a specific strategy for dissemination of the report, which can include the following actions:

• Presentation of the report to high-level authorities, including through a formal hearing with the parliament.
• Bilateral meetings with the head of government, and inter-institutional roundtables with several ministries.
• Public event to launch the report and raise awareness, as well as spark debate on key issues.
• Press conference and release of a media kit.
• Working meetings with other stakeholders, in particular civil society organisations, bar associations and other actors interacting with the NPM and who can play a role in the implementation of its recommendations.
• Wide dissemination of the report (by email and regular mail) to all the above-mentioned institutions and organisations.
• Bringing a set of copies of the annual report to lectures, training events and meetings during the year in order to help present the NPM and the work it does.
• Publicising the report on social media.
• Publish thematic articles drawn from the annual report one by one over the following year.
• Distribution of the report to detention libraries, where it can be accessed by staff and persons deprived of liberty.

Although not the target audience of NPM reports, a number of international human rights bodies and mechanisms have an interest in NPM annual reports, in particular the SPT, other international and regional bodies and other NPMs. It is therefore also important for the NPM to ensure wide dissemination of its annual report beyond its national borders. A good practice is to send NPM annual reports to the SPT, who, in turn, publicizes them on its own website. It is also useful for NPMs to send their reports to other NPMs and to relevant regional and international human rights bodies working on detention issues as a way of engaging and sharing information that can feed into their deliberation.

Annual reports should be translated into the national languages of the country in which the NPM operates, including indigenous languages. For the purpose of international dissemination and to facilitate future exchanges on the content of the report with the SPT, it is also a good practice to publish the full report (or at least its executive summary) in English.

The conduct of preventive visits requires a specific methodology, which includes the preparation, the conduct itself as well as the follow-up to the visit. Some considerations are specific for each type of place (for example police stations, immigration detention facilities or women prisons), although there is a common basis for all. In broad outline, the conduct usually includes an initial talk with the director, a tour of the facility, interviews in private with both detainees and members of staff, observations, analysis of registers and other relevant documentation and a final talk with the director. All sources of information have to be triangulated (cross-checked) in order to ensure that the findings are objective and robust.

Recommendations are one of the most important tools that NPMs have to effect change but recommendations alone often aren’t enough to make the desired change happen, in particular because the recommendations made by NPMs are not binding on the authorities. This is why recommendations need to be part of an overall monitoring cycle that includes: planning, information gathering and analysis (usually through visits), reporting and recommendations, and follow-up, including through dialogue with the authorities.

This is also closely linked to the need for NPMs to think strategically about the changes that they wish to see and the different strategies and actions that they can take to make sure these changes occur.

Follow-up also helps NPMs to measure progress over time, both within specific institutions and in related laws, policies, and practices. If recommendations are well drafted their implementation is also more easily measured and indicators developed to track progress, allowing NPMs to more easily see if the requested changes have occurred.
Keeping track of recommendations is also important for the planning process of NPMs. Analysis of which recommendations were implemented and the strategies that were used can help NPMs to identify future priorities, as well as the approaches that led to the most success.

Thematic reports commonly involve an in-depth analysis including: the problems and risks identified and contributing factors at the legal level, the policy and practice level, the detention management level and even the cultural level. Such reports will often include reference to the relevant international and regional standards and clear recommendations about the results the NPM would like to see.

Article 23 of the OPCAT requires states parties to “publish and disseminate the annual reports of the national preventive mechanisms.” Although this obligation is formulated as an obligation of the state, it is a clear requirement for NPMs to produce such a report every year. Beyond the obligation contained in the OPCAT, annual reports serve several purposes. Below are the main reasons why NPMs should produce and publish them:

• To give visibility to NPM actions and challenges

The annual report is, first of all, an opportunity for the NPM to publicize a summary of its main activities during the year, including for example: types and number of places visited, advice on laws and policies, and engagement with national authorities, regional and international human rights bodies, and other stakeholders, including civil society organisations. It is also an opportunity to bring up challenges faced by the NPM in the fulfilment of its torture prevention mandate, including, for example, a lack of resources or cooperation from the authorities.

• To  demonstrate the NPM is accountable

As a public institution, the NPM is accountable to the state and those who live there and most NPMs have an obligation to report annually on their activities to the government and/or parliament. Publishing the annual report enables the NPM to demonstrate it is accountable for its actions, both to the authorities and to the general population, by illustrating how its work can make a difference in practice. This is also why presenting NPM working methods in the annual report can be useful – as a way of demonstrating, not only the differences to which it contributed, but also how and why prevention works.

• To highlight key issues and recommendations on torture prevention

The purpose of an NPM annual report is to publish a synthesis of its main findings and challenges relating to torture prevention. Based on these findings, the NPM can then present ways forward and key recommendations to the different state authorities on the measures to be taken at the legal, policy and practical levels to better prevent torture and other ill-treatment in detention. This analysis will contribute to public debates on the NPM findings. It will also facilitate an ongoing dialogue with the authorities and help other actors, including civil society organisations, to advocate for change, based on the NPM’s public recommendations.

The purpose and type of each visit will govern how the team proceeds and should therefore be specifically defined beforehand. In broad outline, there are five generic types of visit:

1. In-depth visits: So-called in-depth visits are by nature preventive, as they aim at having an understanding as comprehensive as possible of the place visited (prisons, police stations, psychiatric institutions, or others). In large institutions, in-depth visits generally last several days and up to a few weeks, as they intend to cover all aspects of conditions and treatment in the facility. During such visits, a broad range of issues will be thoroughly analysed, from procedural safeguards and food to healthcare and staff working conditions. In-depth visits, particularly to large establishments, require a multidisciplinary team with a diversity of expertise and competences. All facilities across a given country should be at least once the object of an in-depth visit. In-depth visits can be either announced or unannounced, although announced visits have the advantage of easing the work of both the visiting team and the staff working in the facility, particularly in large establishments, such as prisons or psychiatric institutions.   
2. Thematic visits: The objective of thematic visits is to look at specific issues only, often across a series of similar facilities, but not necessarily. For example, NPMs could look into how detainees are notified about their rights in police custody, the use of isolation and restraints in psychiatric institutions or how solitary confinement is applied across different types of detention settings. Specific themes are often chosen following recurring allegations over certain issues, whether identified by the NPM itself or by others, such as NGOs or the media. Thematic visits are often followed by thematic reports that highlight key issues of concern to a broader audience. They constitute a good opportunity for addressing the underlying systemic causes.  
3. Follow-up visits: The most reliable way of ascertaining whether the NPMs’ recommendations have been implemented is to conduct follow-up visits. Follow-up visits are therefore based on previous reports and recommendations. They are usually shorter than in-depth visits, although NPMs may conduct a second phase of in-depth that would include a follow-up of their recommendations previously made. It is essential that NPMs have an efficient internal system to easily track reports and therefore adequately follow-up on their recommendations. Follow-up visits can also refer to visits aimed at following up recommendations made by other bodies, in particular the SPT.  
4. Ad hoc visits: They refer to visits which are not planned in the programme of visits. They can take place following a major event (such as fire or a strike) or can be required because the NPM has gathered information about possible patterns of abuse in a specific facility or in a series of facilities. Ad hoc visits therefore aim at further investigating issues of particular concern. Programmes of visits need to include some degree of flexibility and leave room for unplanned visits, which are important and feed into the preventive work.  
5. Reactive visits: They refer to visits reacting to specific allegations. They usually take place following a complaint, received either from a detainee, a relative or an NGO. They are not part of the established programme of visits. Although reactive visits may be required, both for the credibility of the NPM and by the urgency of the situation, they should remain exceptional and not divert the NPM from its preventive mandate.

An important consideration is that the annual report of an NPM ought to be written internally by NPM members or staff. Writing the report is an opportunity for the whole institution to reflect jointly and strategically on the main achievements of the year and on issues deserving public attention. It also contributes to internal information-sharing and building of institutional memory within the NPM.

In cases where the NPM formally involves non-governmental organisations in its work (such as in an “Ombudsman plus” model), they should be consulted on the content of the report and be able to make comments on it. In practice, for multiple body NPMs, the drafting process is usually led by the NPM coordinating institution.

Unannounced visits are defined by the fact that they are not notified to the authorities. They are usually part of the programme of visits, and can be either in-depth, thematic, or follow-up visits, although they can also take place in the margin of the programme of visits, as ad hoc or reactive visits to specific allegations or incidents. The OPCAT does not expressly uses the term “unannounced visits”, but this power is implied in Article 12(a), 14(c) and – in particular for NPMs - 20(c). The SPT has further clarified that the State should “ensure that the NPM is able to carry out visits in the manner and with the frequency that the NPM itself decides. This includes the ability to conduct private interviews with those deprived of liberty and the right to carry out unannounced visits at all times to all places of deprivation of liberty, in accordance with the provisions of the Optional Protocol3 ”.

NPMs may find that announcing their visits, especially in case of in-depth visits to large establishments, may facilitate the conduct and overall dialogue with the authorities. This would for example enable the NPM to gain specific information beforehand and agree on preliminary meetings, but also ensure that the director can make necessary arrangements for making the staff available and limit as much as possible the interference with everyday work. Visits are sometimes announced a few weeks - or only a few days - in advance without specifying the exact dates, in order to enable the authorities to prepare themselves while maintaining an element of surprise. Some visits, however, should usually be unannounced, in particular visits to police stations, where the risk of ill-treatment is usually greater than in other custodial settings. The “surprise effect” is also particularly relevant, as detainees may be at risk of being removed, hidden or transferred prior to the visit if it is announced.

Good recommendations are drawn from reports, which are themselves based on credible evidence, triangulated among several sources, and solid analysis. Recommendations are thus part of a process, requiring significant time and resources, which includes both the visit, report and the follow-up. Engaging in this process enables NPMs to identify risk factors and the root causes of the problems they identify (which often lie outside the specific place of detention being visited). It also enables them to make recommendations that address the laws, practices and policies that will best improve the situation. As with reports it is important that those who write recommendations are also part of the visiting team.
The APT has developed a so-call “Double-SMART” model for drafting recommendations. This model, presented below, defines criteria that can be systematically applied in order to make recommendations as effective and useful as possible. The “Double-SMART” criteria are:

• Specific
• Measurable
• Achievable
• Results-oriented
• Time-bound

+

• Solution-suggestive
• Mindful of prioritisation, sequencing & risks
• Argued
• Root-cause responsive
• Targeted

In practice, it may not be necessary to draft recommendations that comply with all ten criteria. Nevertheless they serve as an important guide for collective or individual analysis and review of draft recommendations prior to publication, as well as discussion with the authorities. Well-drafted recommendations make the task of the authorities easier when it comes to implementing them, and it also makes follow-up easier because they do not require additional indicators for progress to be measured.

A thematic report will commonly be based on a number of visits to places of detention, as well as related research and consultations. It may be useful for NPMs (while maintaining their independence) to consult with civil society organisations, experts, and other relevant oversight institutions, both when selecting topics for a thematic report, as well as in the drafting and follow-up phase. This can ensure that the NPM is fully informed of the priorities and concerns of relevant organisations, including those working with specific groups in situations of vulnerability. This kind of consultation around a thematic report can also help the NPM push for implementation of the key recommendations after publication.

This kind of consultation, as well as the number of visits that are usually required to prepare a thematic report, means that NPMs usually produce no more than one a year and sometimes even less.

An annual report is a document, in which the NPM publicly presents the main activities conducted during the year and key recommendations in relation to the prevention of torture and ill-treatment, mainly based on observations made during monitoring visits to places of deprivation of liberty. It is also an opportunity to present achievements, as well as priorities and perspectives for the following year. Annual reports are also an important communication tool for NPMs and many use them to present their specific approach and working methods, including in accessible language. This can help to increase the trust and legitimacy of the NPM, particularly among individuals and organisations who might not otherwise be aware of what it is or how it works. The annual report complements other types of reports NPMs may publish, including reports of visits to places of deprivation of liberty and thematic reports addressing specific detention issues.

In cases of NPMs that are part of a broader institution (National Human Rights Commission or ombuds institution, for example), the question is whether the annual report should be published as part of the broader institution’s annual report or as a separate report. A good practice is for NPMs who are part of a broader institution to publish their annual report as a separate report or to have a specific chapter or section in the broader report of the institution. In the latter case, the communication strategy surrounding the publication of the report should ensure enough visibility for NPM work as one of the core mandates of the institution. Publication of a separate NPM annual report may be particularly important for those NPMs who do not publish visit reports and for whom an annual report is the main public communication to a wider audience.

Multiple body NPMs should publish a joint report, based on discussions among all institutions to ensure that the key findings and recommendations reflect the key issues in the different areas of deprivation of liberty covered by each institution. This is in addition to any individual reports published by each institution to cover their non-OPCAT activities.

There is no straightforward answer to this question. The objective of the OPCAT, spelled out in its first article is to “establish a system of regular visits […] to places where people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” There is therefore a requirement of regularity stemming from the OPCAT. However, given the very broad range of places of deprivation of liberty falling under the mandate of the NPMs, it is impossible that all places are frequently monitored. Regularity should therefore be understood broadly, in the sense that places of detention have to remain under regular scrutiny over a long period of time.

NPM practices vary hugely: some of them conduct less than 10 visits every year, while others conduct several hundreds. However, these figures must be mirrored with the structure, resources available and specific context of each NPM, which also vary enormously from one country to another. Some NPMs do manage to couple quality with quantity, but this is not within the reach of all monitoring bodies, particularly small institutions with limited resources. Although NPMs might be pressured by others - such as the Parliament, government bodies or civil society organisations - to “do more”, they should resist the temptation of multiplying the number of visits only to show that they are active, and end up conducting superficial visits or not being able to properly follow-up on their visits and recommendations. The quality of visits is a precondition for qualitative analysis and recommendations, and, in turn, producing robust, high-quality and evidence-based reports and recommendations is the best way to demonstrate the NPM’s relevance.

NPM recommendations may relate to all aspects of deprivation of liberty, including: places of detention, their management and functioning; public policies relating to detention; the relevant legal framework; and the broader institutional frameworks (such as the police force as a whole).

The form and content of recommendations depends on their audience, their objectives and the type of situation to which they relate. Recommendations may relate to problems that can be solved in the short, medium and long-term. Recommendations may also deal with both complex, systemic issues and specific topics. NPMs may decide to focus their recommendations on specific priorities or thematic areas, such as: material conditions, procedures and policies, laws and regulations, as well as specific situations and groups at risk.. A problem does not have to reach a specific level of severity before an NPM decides to make it the subject of a recommendation; indeed, recommendations may often be aimed at resolving seemingly small issues before they escalate into larger problems. In general, NPMs often make the following type of recommendations:

Recommendations following a visit. This type of recommendation relates to the key findings following a visit to a particular place and is usually included in the visit report. Such recommendations usually relate to only one establishment.

Thematic recommendations. They usually follow a series of visits relating to either a particular theme (such as use of restraints) or to a series of similar facilities (for example, recommendations could be the result of a series of visits to immigration detention facilities). As such, they usually concern laws, practices and policies that are relevant for a number of places of deprivation of liberty. Usually such recommendations will be contained in a specific thematic report and/or in the annual report. 

Urgent recommendations. They usually relate to a serious infringement of fundamental rights and are a way for an NPM to quickly notify the authorities and give them a defined period in which to rectify the situation.

Recommendations in the annual report. This type of recommendation is often more general than those made in visit reports and will usually relate to broad, systemic issues of particular importance. Because of the higher publicity surrounding the annual report, as well as the fact that national authorities have an obligation to consider the implementation of recommendations therein, NPMs often use these reports as a platform to bring attention to recommendations that are a particular priority.
In addition to including recommendations in their reports, NPMs may also make written “preliminary observations” to the authorities, usually at the end of a visit during the final meeting with the director of the establishment. These are a useful way of highlighting the most pressing or urgent issues found during a visit, which can then be more properly addressed following a full analysis of the information gathered during the visit and the writing of the report.

The point of departure when considering a thematic report should always be findings identified through the NPM’s regular visits to places of detention and be anchored in the NPMs ‘findings on the ground’. A number of considerations are important for NPMs when choosing a topic for a thematic report. These may include:

• Where the same or similar issues are found in a number of places of deprivation of liberty of the same type (such as police stations or psychiatric hospitals), often with a common, systemic, cause. An example of this might be failings in the way police inform suspects of their rights or provide access to a lawyer, following arrest.  
• When related issues are present across a number of different types of places of deprivation of liberty. This might include issues faced by a particular group in situations of vulnerability, such as children in both police stations and long-term detention facilities, or a particular set of practices and procedures that increase the risk of torture, such as seclusion or the use of restraints.  
• Themes where previous visit reports or recommendations have not led to the required change – particularly where such changes require new political will.
• Areas where there has been no or very little attention paid previously, either by the NPM or other oversight bodies, such as closed psychiatric institutions or aged care homes, for example.
• When it is in line with their strategy to do so, NPMs may also consider linking topics for thematic reports to those under consideration by international and regional human rights institutions, in order to magnify their visibility. For example, in the run up to a state appearing before the Child Rights Committee, an NPM could consider adopting a thematic focus on children in detention.
• Patterns and systemic issues that the NPM has identified during their regular visits that require sustained attention.
• Issues identified through consultation with civil society,
• Issues linked to ongoing public debates around important policies or legislative changes. In this regard, thematic reports can be an important way for NPMs to participate in and contribute to public debates.
• Thematic reports may also be a useful way for multiple body NPMs to build their collective identity and multiply their impact by speaking with one voice on a particular topic of concern across their different areas of expertise.

Finally, it is important to note that decisions about thematic priorities should be linked to the NPM’s strategic planning process.

Many NPMs use tools to track the recommendations they have made and their degree of implementation. Practice among NPMs varies, with some using databases and others simple spreadsheets. Whatever tool is chosen, however, it needs to be adapted to the NPM’s needs and capacities. Prior to developing such a tool, NPMs should consider the type of information they need to track and the overall purpose of the tool. When developing a tool for recording their recommendations and tracking their implementation, NPMs may want to record some or all of the following factual and analytical information:
Factual details

• The date the recommendations made (and whether it is a repeated recommendation)
• The place to which they relate
• The type of place
• The authority to whom they were made
• The specific report in which they were made, with a link to the full document
• The overall theme or problem area
• Whether they relate to a specific vulnerable group or detention practice
• Any responses from the authorities and/or the agreed timeframe for implementation
• Staff members involved in the visit/drafting of the recommendation

Analytical information

• Whether a recommendation has been accepted by the authorities
• Whether a recommendation has been implemented (and checked by the NPM)
• Whether a recommendation has not been implemented (and why)

Information on themes and keywords linking recommendations to cross-cutting issues and groups may allow NPMs to analyse their (often very large) databases of recommendations and identify themes and trends that change over time or relate to more than one institution. This can be useful for institutional memory as well as in an NPM’s regular strategic and operational planning processes.
Systematising and keeping track of recommendations is also important for NPMs in that it allows them to measure their own progress, helping them to understand where and when they have been effective and helping staff to stay motivated over time.

Annual reports can take different forms and the following should be considered prior to their elaboration:

• Printed and online? Many annual reports are published in printed form but most NPMs now also make their annual reports available online to facilitate broad dissemination. Printed reports may be particularly useful for those, including many detainees, who do not have access to the internet.
• Use of infographics? NPMs increasingly use infographics to make some of their findings and statistics more accessible.
• Use of pictures? Pictures can be very powerful to illustrate specific conditions or situations documented in the report but NPMs should ensure that individual persons cannot be identified.
• Annexes? NPMs often add annexes to their annual reports including, for example, relevant legislation. Those should be kept to a minimum and could even be made available online on the NPM website for future reference.

A key consideration, when defining the format of annual reports, is their readability and accessibility, bearing in mind they can have a rather broad audience. If the annual report is very long, it may be good to include an executive summary and to prepare a specific kit for the media to ensure that key messages are widely disseminated.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution regarding the choice and time of the first visit to be conducted by a newly created/designated NPM. However, it is essential that proper consideration and reflection is given by the NPM before embarking on its first visits. Prior to starting visiting places of detention, it is recommended that NPMs have a clear understanding of the legislative and policy framework and undertake a mapping of places of detention falling under their mandate. It is also advisable to have preliminary contacts with high-level authorities in order to present the NPM’s mandate and its implication in practice. This may avoid misunderstandings about the mandate and problems in accessing facilities. In practice, some NPMs might prefer to start developing a methodology and rapport with the authorities before going on visits, and might therefore build knowledge, know-how and dialogue during the first few months after their establishment. Others might prefer to embark on visits rapidly and to develop their methodology and knowledge as they go along.

NPMs might prefer to start by visiting prisons, as opposed for example to mental health institutions, especially if there is a need within the institution to build knowledge on specific issues such mental health or specific needs of people with dementia. However, this is up to the NPM to decide and some may start by visiting “non-traditional” places of detention. Irrespectively of the approach chosen, is important that the first visits are part of an initial programme of visits, even rudimentary. If first visits may have different objectives (being known by the authorities and detainees, explaining the NPM’s mandate, or mapping and understanding places of detention), what is essential is that visits are underpinned by a clear strategy and a vision.

Recommendations are proposals about the best course of action that an institution (or multiple institutions) should take in order to achieve a positive change in laws, practices or policies. NPMs are given this mandate under Article 19 of the OPCAT. Making recommendations are one of the core elements of their work.

Recommendations made by NPMs are often different from those made by other oversight bodies. Their aim is to deal with the risk factors and root causes that lead to torture, ill-treatment and other human rights violations, in order to prevent them from occurring (or reoccurring in the future). This includes focusing on systemic issues rather than only individual cases. They are based on evidence and analysis and usually follow a visit (or a series of visits) to a place of deprivation of liberty. They are one element of a constructive and dialogue-based process that seeks to resolve problems so that they do not occur again in the future. As such, recommendations are one of the key tools available to NPMs in seeking to effect change.

A strength of NPM recommendations is that the OPCAT places an obligation on the authorities (in Article 22) to “examine the recommendations of the NPM and enter into a dialogue with it on possible implementation measures.” Some NPM laws also place an obligation on the state to reply to NPM recommendations within a certain timeframe.

There are a number of reasons why NPMs may wish to publish a report on a specific thematic issue.

First, thematic reports are especially useful way to address complex and systemic issues that go beyond a single place of deprivation of liberty. Thematic reports are likely to contain recommendations that are aimed at a wide range of different institutions and that relate to both the legal framework and the practices found in different detention settings. They may thus enable NPMs to focus on problems and propose solutions more effectively than in their individual visit reports.

Second, the publicity and media attention around thematic reports can help generate political will around issues that might not otherwise be on the agenda of politicians and policy makers. They can thus contribute to changing laws and public policies that might otherwise be stuck as low priorities.

Third, thematic reports are extremely valuable an awareness raising and educational tool. They can help to introduce, expose and explain complex detention issues to a wide audience that might otherwise not be aware of them. In addition, the publicity around a thematic report can help demonstrate the role and value of the NPM to policymakers and the public.

Nevertheless, thematic report should not be considered as a replacement for visit reports. Because they target a range of institutions, follow-up to thematic reports may be more complicated, with responsibility dispersed among several facilities, and some potentially “hiding” behind this fact. For this reason, and depending on their resources, NPMs may wish to first prioritise visit reports, and then build on them later with a more thematic focus.

NPMs mostly do not issue binding recommendations. Some of them – usually human rights commissions or ombuds institutions – do have this power but, even when they do, they use it rarely, if at all. This is because dialogue and persuasion are almost always more effective – in part because, while it may be possible to force a reluctant authority to implement the letter of a recommendation, it is far less likely to achieve the desired change than if they understand and are invested in the outcome.

NPMs thus have several options if their recommendations are not implemented. First is to find out why, something that will depend very much on whether the recommendation relates to short, medium or long term problems; to systemic or specific issues; and to the topic of the recommendation. It will be much easier for an NPM to understand why a specific recommendation on a simple procedure, with a short time frame for implementation has not been implemented than it will be in relation to a complex, systemic issue that requires action over a long timeframe to solve.  Key questions to ask, however, may include: do the authorities fully understand the recommendation and what it is trying to achieve? Is there a budget issue that is preventing implementation? Or is there resistance from a specific individual or institution that is preventing implementation? Once an NPM has understood why a recommendation has not been implemented, an appropriate strategy can be developed. This might include explaining or reformulating recommendations that aren’t clear, conducting advocacy with specific authorities, including parliament, or meeting with key individuals and institutions to understand and overcome their resistance. Some NPMs also use the media to help exert pressure on authorities, particularly when other methods of persuasion have failed.

Systematically analysing all of the different organisations and individuals who might be relevant to the implementation of a recommendation is also a useful way to overcome obstacles. A key element of this kind of “stakeholder analysis” is to think about the different levels of power and interest that different institutions and individuals may have in relation to a specific recommendation or priority. This can help NPMs to identify which actors might need further persuasion (for example, those that have power but little interest in the topic – maybe including parliamentarians, relevant ministers or the media) as well as which actors might form good coalition or advocacy partners in pressing for change (for example, those that have a lot of interest but, little power when they act alone – maybe including NGOs or families of victims).

When planning a thematic report, NPMs should ensure that they also allocate sufficient time and resources for its dissemination and to follow-up on its key recommendations. NPMs may wish to define a dissemination and follow-up strategy for each report, depending on the subject. This strategy might include some or all of the following:  

• Presentation of the report and discussions with high-level authorities, including, for example, bilateral our roundtable meetings with the heads and senior policy makers within the relevant ministries.
• Presentation to parliament and relevant parliamentary committees, particularly in relation to recommendations on law reform.
• Meetings with the judiciary.
• Dialogue with the heads of institutions covered by the report to discuss the findings and relevance for each institution, as well as how they will implement the recommendations.
• A public event, such as a press conference or public panel, to launch the report and raise awareness of the key findings.
• Working meetings with key partners, in particular civil society organisations, the bar association, or others who have an interest and can play a role in ensuring the recommendations are implemented.
• Wide dissemination of the report, by email, social media, post, and so forth.

It is important to note that dissemination and follow-up is not a one-time event and that the findings of a thematic report will likely be embedded in the NPM’s ongoing dialogue with authorities and planning for future action.

Different factors influence the content of an NPM annual report, in particular: whether it is a first annual report; whether the NPM publishes other types of reports (for example, visit or thematic reports); whether the NPM is part of a broader institution (for example, a National Human Rights Commission or ombuds institution), is composed of multiple institutions or is a new specialised institution.

Regardless of the type of NPM, an annual report can include:

General issues, including mandate and structure

• A foreword (for example written by a known national expert, to increase interest in the report, or, in the case of a multiple body NPM, written and signed by all the chairs of the institutions who make up the NPM).
• A short introduction on the OPCAT and background on NPM designation and establishment processes and legal basis. In the first annual report, the NPM can include a longer background section related to the designation and establishment processes, legal basis and structure of the NPM.
• An introduction to NPM working methods and the NPM approach. This is not only to increase accountability, but also for the sake of sharing and learning between NPMs, and possibly to inspire other control and monitoring bodies. In cases where the description of methods sparks discussion, this can also be an opportunity for the NPM to reflect on its approach or enter into further explanations about why its particular methods are preferred.
• An overview of NPM structure, resources and finances.

Activities, themes and issues

• An overview of key NPM activities during the year (visits, observations on legislation. training and awareness-raising), including both quantitative and qualitative information.
• An analysis of the most important findings and recommendations from visit reports (especially if they are not public).
• An overview of progress made (or lack thereof) in the implementation of NPM recommendations, how the authorities are responding to NPM recommendations and the changes that have occurred.
• Information on cooperation with other actors working on the prevention of torture at the national and international level.
• Perspectives and priorities for the following year.

A good practice observed in some NPM annual reports is the inclusion of a specific thematic focus in relation to issues the NPM has analysed during the year and to use the annual report to write articles on themes observed across visits and sectors. This can even be a good alternative to writing a thematic report if resources or data do not allow for a full-scale report on a particular topic.

In addition, after several years of practice (5 or 10 years, for example), some NPMs have conducted a self-evaluation of their work, identifying key milestones and impact on the prevention of torture and ill-treatment. The result of this analysis may also be reflected in a specific chapter of the relevant annual report.

Finally, due consideration should be given to the following elements when drafting an NPM annual report:

• Confidential information should remain privileged and no personal data should ever be published without the express consent of the person concerned.
• The tone of the report should be constructive, to reflect the spirit of cooperation and dialogue enshrined in the OPCAT.

According to the SPT, any NPM “should plan its work and its use of resources in such a way as to ensure that places of deprivation of liberty are visited in a manner and with sufficient frequency to make an effective contribution to the prevention torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.1 ” To this end, programmes of visits are a central planning tool, whereby NPMs schedule their visits to a series of places of deprivation of liberty (prisons, mental health institutions, but also – if relevant, deportation flights or other non-traditional “places” of detention) within a certain timeframe (usually annual, but it can be bi-annual or even trimestral). Programmes of visits should reflect the NPMs’ priorities and should include in-depth, but also thematic visits, as well as follow-up visits. It is important that programmes of visits also enable NPMs to retain some flexibility in order to be able to react to unplanned situations and to include ad hoc visits or reactive visits to their planning if necessary.

The SPT has further clarified that NPMs should “have criteria for selecting the places to be visited and for deciding on thematic visits that ensure that all places of detention are visited regularly, taking into account the type and size of institutions, their security level and the nature of known human rights problems2 .” It is also necessary that programmes of visits take into account the required time for the preparation, in particular when new areas or issues are to be monitored, as well as capacities, resources and expertise needed. During the planning stage already, NPMs should ensure that sufficient time will be allocated to each facility, based on the size of the institution and the type of visit.

Thematic reports are documents in which NPMs focus on a single issue linked to the risk of torture and ill-treatment. A thematic report might, for example, contain an in-depth analysis, of a particular practice, such as the use of restraints across a range of detention settings; a particular moment or period of detention, such as the first hours after arrest; a particular group at heightened risk, such as the treatment of children in different places of detention; or a particular type of institution, such as closed psychiatric facilities.

The length of a preventive visit will largely depend on the type of visit (in-depth, thematic, ad hoc, follow-up), as well as the size of the institution visited and the number of persons deprived of liberty within the establishment. Other factors impacting on the duration include the size of the monitoring delegation, its degrees of experience and expertise, as well as the problems that will be identified in the facility. While it is impossible to give precise indication regarding what would be the appropriate duration for a visit, the following remarks can be useful:

• Even a visit to a small facility, such as a police station, requires time in order to identify possible patterns of abuse and dysfunction.
• All visits – and in particular in-depth visits – require following certain steps, from an initial talk with the director, a visit of the premises, interviews with detainees and staff, the analysis of documentation, to a final talk with the person in charge. In small facilities with few detainees, it is also recommended to conduct interviews with all, in order to mitigate the risk of reprisals. It is therefore not likely that any preventive visit, even to a small facility, could be conducted in less than one full day.
• Visits to large establishments, with over 100 detainees and more, particularly indepth visits looking at all aspects of detention, should last at least a few days. Some NPMs spend up to two weeks or even longer in large places of deprivation of liberty, such as prisons, immigration detention centers, or psychiatric hospitals.
• Spending enough time in any given facility is the only way to have a real sense of the atmosphere of the place. Taking the time to observe interactions and processes provides a wealth of information and is an important component of any preventive visit.
• A good preparation and a well-structure team work are the best way to ensure that time is spent efficiently in the facility.
• The possibility of adding night visits as well as visits during weekends should also be taken into consideration when deciding on the duration of the visit

Objectivity, accuracy and good analysis are the foundation of a good relationship with the authorities. While the authorities are unlikely to always agree with the content of recommendations, they should never be able to question their accuracy or their factual or normative basis.

Effective follow-up is based on dialogue with the authorities. This dialogue takes place at several different stages. During the drafting phase, many NPMs send draft reports and recommendations to the authorities, in order to receive feedback, allow for corrections (to factual errors only), and ensure the authorities are prepared for implementation.
Some NPMs also organise face-to-face discussions with the authorities on their draft recommendations, in order to ensure buy-in at an early stage, including among the heads of specific institutions. Closed-door roundtables to discuss thematic issues (including reports and recommendations) with the authorities can make them better and more specific, as well as making it more likely that they will be implemented. Either during these discussions, or following publication, some NPMs ask the authorities to propose a timeline for implementation, which can then form the basis for follow-up. In some contexts timelines for responses by the authorities are enshrined in law.

Following publication of reports and recommendations, some NPMs also return to the places to which they relate, in order to present them to the management and staff of the establishment, to make sure they understand them and to answer any questions they might have about specific recommendations.

Many NPMs also ask the authorities to report to them on the progress of implementation of different recommendations and some also agree with the authorities on an action plan for implementation. It is also important, however, that NPMs conduct follow-up visits to check implementation in practice. This is to ensure that recommendation have been implemented correctly as well as to make sure that they are having the desired effect on conditions or treatment of those deprived of their liberty. Formal meetings and exchanges are also complemented by many NPMs with regular exchanges between the NPM and focal points within the different authorities and other stakeholders. Some NPMs have called the ideal level for this kind of relationship “close but not too close”. In other words, close enough to have a good working relationship, while not infringing on the independence of the NPM.

Some NPMs also use other government monitoring bodies and inspectorates (whether they are called external or internal) in follow up of recommendations. By targeting such bodies as part of their follow-up to recommendations, some NPMs have helped them to adjust their own inspections and methodology to cover the risks of ill-treatment or even in relation to a specific recommendation made to an institution or across a whole sector.

The content and format of thematic reports should be responsive to the topic that has been chosen and NPMs may wish to be creative in choosing a format and content that fulfils each report’s specific objective. However, it is good practice to include an executive summary of main findings, a description of the scope and methodology, the rationale for the report, and the analysis and recommendations. In common with other NPM reports, it may be helpful to the reader if the recommendations are also grouped together in one place as well as appearing in the text.

In addition, the following considerations may be useful:

• Some thematic reports are printed in hard copy but most are also available online, including in different languages. In common with other reports, some NPMs also publish their reports in plain language versions. Publication of a word or text only version can also help differently abled people who use specialised software to access reports. Printed reports may also be distributed to places, including places of deprivation of liberty, where internet access may be limited.
• When used for a clear purpose, graphics and photographs can be a powerful way to illustrate specific trends, conditions or situations documented in the report, although it is important to ensure that, in photographs, individual persons cannot be identified.
• NPMs may also consider other ways of disseminating their findings, including video and audio summaries.