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. 

Outside the context of SPT visits, the SPT also has a mandate, under article 11 of the OPCAT, to provide advice to NPMs and to support and strengthen them in their preventive work. This requires ongoing direct contact, in particular outside the context of SPT country visits. The basis for these interactions is set out in the SPT Rules of Procedure.

Because the SPT is organised into regional teams, each with a regional head and country rapporteurs, these groups and individuals will usually be the first point of contact for NPMs, outside of in-country visits.

This might include several types of interactions, including: meetings with NPMs during SPT sessions in Geneva (both face to face and via video-conference); participation by SPT members in national activities; participation by the SPT in NPM regional meetings and workshops; and ongoing written and oral communication.

Many NPMs also update the SPT in relation to other issues, including state compliance with OPCAT obligations (including, for example, attacks on NPM independence). Some NPMs have also contacted the SPT in relation to thematic issues or developments in detention, which can be useful in helping the SPT to plan future visits. In relation to some of these issues, the SPT can play a useful role by intervening directly with the state party. Finally, some NPMs have asked the SPT for authoritative interpretations of specific articles of the OPCAT.

It is also common practice for NPMs to share their annual reports with the SPT, who post them publically on their website.

Finally, the SPT can sometimes provide advice to NPMs without being in direct contact, by providing general guidance and recommendations on NPM functioning through its publications, “guidelines on NPMs” and annual report.

One of the moments at which NPMs will likely interact with the SPT is in relation to SPT country visits. This interaction is likely to fall into three main categories.

In relation to preparation of visits, NPMs can send information to the SPT during the visit planning phase. This will usually be once  the  SPT  makes  its  visiting  programme  public  (usually  in June and  November  of  the year before the programme starts). The SPT often contacts the relevant NPMs to provide background information to better inform their visit programme.

This is in order to help the SPT understand the particular risks, places and themes relating to detention in the country and, on this basis, to establish its priorities for the visit. This is an important opportunity for the NPM to ensure that its own priorities are reflected in the SPT visit and subsequent report and recommendations.

In addition to specific places, risks, and themes, NPMs may also wish to suggest key national actors that it thinks the SPT should consider meeting during the visit. The NPM may also provide information to the SPT in relation to its own functioning, powers and budget, particularly in cases where the additional attention and pressure of an SPT visit may help their own advocacy for improvements.

During visits, NPMs will also usually meet with the SPT at the start of the visit and as it progresses in time, in order to discuss precise plans and priorities. Depending on the situation, the NPM and the SPT may conduct one or several visits together to places of deprivation of liberty. This can be an opportunity to focus on issues in detention, but also to exchange on visit methodology and NPM practices. At the end of the SPT country visit, the NPM will also often participate in the final discussion with the authorities, in addition to a meeting between the SPT and the NPM alone.

Following an SPT visit, the NPM may wish to conduct follow-up, both immediately and over the longer term.

In terms of immediate follow-up, NPMs can play an important role in prevention of reprisals, including in accordance with the UN Guidelines against Intimidation or Reprisals (“San José Guidelines”). This might include going back to the places that were visited by the SPT and conducting interviews and other monitoring activity with this specific purpose in mind.

Over the longer term, the NPM plays an important role in encouraging the state to make the visit report public, as well as the official state response (if it does not already do so as a matter of policy). If the SPT report is made public, there will then be important opportunities for engagement on follow-up to the recommendations. This might include a tripartite dialogue with the SPT, NPM and the state on how and when it plans to implement them. If both documents are made public (i.e. the SPT in-country visit report and the state party’s response), the NPM plays an important role in monitoring the implementation of SPT recommendations.

When the country concerned has a designated NPM, SPT in-country visit reports also include specific recommendations and observations to the state in relation to the NPM (for example, on resources, independence or legal basis). In addition, the SPT may often provide a second report directly to the NPM with recommendations on NPM functioning. Whether this NPM-specific report is made public is then up to the NPM itself to decide, although this is a good practice. Some NPMs also publish their replies to the SPT report at the same time.

In addition, it is worth noting that, through the Special Fund established by Article 26 of the OPCAT, funds may be made available to support the implementation  of  SPT  recommendations  resulting  from  an  in-country  visit, in cases where it has been made public. Both NPMs and civil society can apply for funding in this way. NPMs in states that have not received an SPT visit can also apply to the Special Fund for support to their educational programmes.

The OPCAT establishes a triangular relationship between the state party, the NPM and the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT). The OPCAT is the first international human rights instrument to establish such a relationship. This link is built on the shared mandate and powers of the SPT and of NPMs to conduct visits, make recommendations, and maintain (confidential) contact with each other.

This means that, in relation to NPMs, the SPT has a specific mandate under article 11 of the OPCAT to:

• Advise and assist in relation to NPM establishment.
• Maintain direct and confidential contact with NPMs.
• Provide training and technical assistance to NPMs and advice relating to the protection of persons deprived of liberty.
• Make recommendations and observations to states on strengthening NPMs.

The possibility for NPMs to have confidential and direct interactions with the SPT, without the interference of the state party, is one of the most powerful powers granted by the OPCAT.

To avoid any misunderstanding or frustration with regards to each other capacities and mandates, NPMs and CSOs may wish to clearly formulate and agree on the expectations, possibilities and limits of their cooperation or partnership, before they start work. In some cases NPMs have found it useful to include the objectives and modalities of this cooperation in a formal Memorandum of Understanding. Although, it is important that any MoUs or similar formal structures do not to restrict the independence or flexibility of the NPM.

The OPCAT mandate is specific and requires any operational partners of an NPM to abide by important rules to preserve the institution’s independence and effectiveness. This includes respecting the confidentiality of any data that NPMs have access to through their broad OPCAT powers. While an expert from a CSO may join the NPM on a specific visit or for a specific project, this would usually require them to sign a confidentiality agreement before being allowed to access sensitive information. More broadly, NPMs will need to be careful when working with CSOs to not share sensitive information that the CSOs would not have been able to otherwise access. It is paramount that this is clarified and agreed in advance of any cooperation and particularly, before any visits to places of deprivation of liberty. It might be useful to share information with CSOs regarding the NPM’s obligations and responsibility to protect sensitive information to avoid any misunderstandings or problems that might arise.

Joint monitoring visits, if they are undertaken, are usually the most sensitive and tricky aspect of cooperation with CSOs. In such cases, it is recommended that both parties agree in advance on their roles, responsibilities and approach during the visit. They will also need to agree in advance on the actions they shall take should they uncover any gross violation of human rights or other situations requiring urgent action. A key issue is also the question of how CSOs can use any  information gathered during joint visits, taking into account the point above regarding sensitive or confidential information and the responsibility that NPMs have to protect such information.

To work together, NPMs and CSOs can collaborate in various ways, which are not mutually exclusive:

• Exchanging information: formally or informally, regularly or on an ad-hoc basis, within the limits set by each party, including for NPMs the confidentiality requirements of the OPCAT mandate. This exchange of information can be important to strengthening the effective implementation of NPM mandates. Indeed, NPMs often rely on the information provided by CSOs (among other key sources) to plan their visits strategically, including by helping NPMs to identify which places to visit or the topics to address as a matter of priority. CSOs may also be able to provide NPMs with useful baseline information on the places they visit. NPM visit reports are also a hugely important contribution, made by the NPM, to CSOs working in the area covered by the report. As the NPMs have access to places, information and sources that CSOs cannot access, the visit report and the “hard facts” it presents is vital to many CSOs and a document on which they can build effective advocacy. Similarly, if NPM visit reports are not published but instead kept confidential, this may demotivate CSOs from contributing their experiences and knowledge to the NPM, thus depriving them of a valuable tool in planning visits, deciding on issues to investigate, and so forth. In other words: public visit reports may be a crucial cross pollinator for NPMs and CSOs.
• Supporting each other’s activities and recommendations: CSOs can be of invaluable help in pushing NPM recommendations forward, when they advocate and support them with authorities, the media and the wider public.
• Strengthening capacity: In several instances, CSOs have played an active role in building the capacity of their domestic NPM, especially at the early stages. NPMs can often rely on the expertise of CSOs in relation to institutional processes (from selection of NPM members to planning and communication), and substantial detention and detention monitoring issues. CSOs can also advocate for adequate resourcing for the NPM, as well as for the implementation of SPT recommendations related to the NPM.
• Cooperating on specific activities: Several NPMs cooperate with individual experts including those who are members of CSOs. NPMs and CSOs may also collaborate on joint projects or in relation to specific visits or reports. Cooperation might include: advocacy with authorities; awareness-raising with the media or the wider public; and training and capacity-building of torture prevention stakeholders. Some NPMs collaborate with expert CSOs on thematic priorities, although it is important here that NPMs are careful to maintain their independence.
• Establishing a durable institutional collaboration: CSOs and NPMs can also collaborate on a more permanent basis, often by providing CSOs with a formal advisory role in relation to NPM activities. CSOs can be part of NPM advisory bodies or councils, which usually entails a policy-making role but can sometimes include giving advice or taking decisions on programmatic issues related to the implementation of the NPM’s mandate.
• Establishing a formal partnership within the NPM: “Ombudsman plus” NPM models involve ombuds institutions designated as NPMs and formally integrating CSOs into their work, including regular monitoring activities.

Due to their different and often complementary mandates and approaches, NPMs and CSOs have the potential to work together effectively to better prevent torture. By joining forces and cooperating to achieve their goals, NPMs and CSOs can maximize their resources and their impact.

The OPCAT provides NPM with unique powers of access to detention places, persons and information. It also places an obligation on the authorities to enter into dialogue on NPM recommendations. From their side, CSOs often have strong field presence and first-hand information, including through their direct contacts with persons deprived of their liberty or their relatives. Many are also able to effectively raise awareness and to mobilise public opinion through their advocacy or campaigns. Specialised CSOs also possess extensive knowledge and expertise in their specific fields of work.

NPMs and CSOs can help strengthening each other’s ability to achieve change in detention by exchanging information, working together or by forming more formal coalitions in relation to their policy and advocacy work.

NPMs and CSOs can also play an important role in strengthening each other’s mandates. CSOs are often key stakeholders in domestic discussions on the NPM, including from the early stages when they may be involved in advocacy around OPCAT ratification and NPM designation or establishment, a role that is recognised as crucial by the SPT Guidelines on NPMs.

NPMs also play an important role in ensuring that places of deprivation of liberty are not closed to CSOs monitoring groups or mechanisms after NPM establishment.

In cases where there are reprisals against them, NPMs and CSOs also can be key allies in mutually protecting each other from undue pressure or interference.

Civil society includes a wide range of actors including non-governmental organisations and associations, professional associations, trade unions, academia, and faith-based groups.

Civil society organisations (CSOs) are essential actors in the prevention of torture. They work with and in parallel to NPMs, with their different mandates, working methods and strategies. While it is impossible to provide an exhaustive list, in relation to torture prevention the following types of civil society organisations may be particularly relevant: national and international human rights organisations, including those litigating on cases of torture and related issues; organisations working with particular groups in situations of vulnerability; detainee family associations, academics, unions (for example of healthcare workers of detention staff), organisations of former or present detainees, and professional associations, particularly of lawyers and doctors, among many others. 

Throughout this tool we have used the term “interaction” to cover a large range of different activities. In this section, we try to break it down into the different ways it might happen.

The Committee against Torture and other UN treaty bodies

Sharing information, in the form of reports and statements and through face to face meetings is one of the main ways that NPMs can interact with international and regional bodies.

For many NPMs, the UN Committee against Torture (CAT) is a key interlocutor in this regard. Information provided by NPMs is considered by the CAT at each stage of the reporting cycle.

Like other treaty bodies, CAT recommendations may deal with substantive issues relating to torture and ill-treatment but, of particular importance to NPMs, they can also relate to the NPM itself. By providing accurate information to the CAT, NPMs can thus use it as a powerful way to advocate for more independence, for more resources, or for change in relation to specific or thematic detention issues.

First, NPMs can submit written information to the Committee as it prepares its List of Issues (LOI) and List of Issues Prior to Reporting (LOIPR) – the two documents that form the basis for the state report and eventual examination by the Committee. By submitting information for the LOI and LOIPR, NPMs have an opportunity to influence the focus and priority areas that are considered by the Committee.

Second, NPMs can submit written information to the Committee for the examination of the State party’s report. This will usually happen once the state has submitted its report and is an opportunity for the NPM to submit additional information and questions that it thinks that the Committee should take into consideration.

Third, NPMs that have submitted written information can take part in one-hour closed-door briefings with the Committee during the session, immediately before the dialogue with the state party delegation. These meetings, which include interpretation, if needed, are an opportunity to meet with the members of the Committee and to discuss confidentially any additional information that they might think is particularly relevant.

Forth, NPMs can attend the examination of the state party report, although they are not able to intervene during these sessions.

Finally, the Committee has a follow-up procedure relating to concerns and recommendations in its concluding observations that are particularly serious, protective and that can be achieved within one year. NPMs also have an opportunity to submit written information to the Committee on the implementation of these recommendations.

While NPMs may not always have exactly the same rights to meet with the committees of other UN treaty bodies (usually unless they are NHRIs), they can usually contribute written information in similar ways at the different points of the review cycle. As with the CAT, written information provided by NPMs can influence the issues that each committee chooses to focus on and the content of their reports. Where their recommendations relate to NPM priorities, it may also be useful to reference them in NPM reports and to provide shadow reports to the committees in relation to state progress on implementation.  

Finally, in addition to the periodic review cycle, NPMs can also provide input on draft general comments on different articles, as they are prepared by each committee. This can be an interesting opportunity to contribute to the development of law and standards that are relevant to their work.

The Universal Periodic Review

NPMs can also reinforce their national work through interactions with the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process. The UPR aims to review the “fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments based on human rights treaties and other instruments that they have ratified”.  It takes place every four years through a process in which each State is reviewed by the HRC through a working group of the whole membership, followed by discussion and decision in plenary. The UPR Working Group meets three times a year for two weeks and reviews 14 States each time.

The UPR involves five main steps and there is an opportunity for NPM involvement at each stage.

The first stage is documentation. The review is based on information from three sources: information provided by the state, a compilation prepared by the OHCHR of UN reports and official documents, and a summary (prepared by OHCHR) of “[a]dditional, credible and reliable information provided by other relevant stakeholders”.  Information provided by NPM is often included in this last category. NPMs may also wish to participate in a national consultative process, if it exists, relating to the preparation of the state report.

The second stage is the so-called “interactive dialogue” of the UPR Working Group. While NPMs are not permitted to make statements during this stage of the UPR, if they are able to attend they can nevertheless have an impact by meeting bilaterally with the different state delegations, holding side events and advocating for the inclusion of their recommendations in the UPR report.

The third stage is the UPR report and recommendations. The report includes: a summary of the proceedings, conclusions, recommendations made by individual States in the interactive dialogue, and voluntary commitments made by the State under review.  Because many states would like to make recommendations that are then included in this report, but lack detailed, expert knowledge of the country situation, they often rely on outside expertise when formulating their recommendations. NPMs can thus have a useful impact by providing states with high quality information and suggested recommendations – which are then often included in the UPR report.

The fourth stage is the HRC plenary debate and adoption of the report. NPMs that are also “A status” NHRIs are given a particular slot to speak, immediately after the state under review. Other institutions can also intervene at the end of the session, although they share a timeslot with NGOs and other NHRIs, so may not always be guaranteed time to speak, depending on the timing and how many others have signed up.

Finally, as with many other international and regional processes, NPMs may find the UPR follow-up phase useful in achieving the change they wish to see in detention. This might involve publicising recommendations that relate to detention or their thematic priorities, monitoring steps that the state takes towards implementation, and referencing UPR recommendations in their own reports and advocacy or communications.

The Special Procedures

The special procedures (SPs) are independent human rights experts appointed to undertake certain mandates on behalf of the HRC. Their mandates are either thematic or country specific and they are created and renewed by resolutions of the HRC. The SPs vary in the ways in which they operate but, in general they all: undertake studies, investigate situations of rights abuses that relate to their mandates, conduct country visits, receive complaints (and intervene with states on their behalf), issue urgent requests, and report to the HRC (and often the General Assembly) on their findings and recommendations.

The special procedures and, in particular, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture (UNSRT) may be useful to NPMs in several ways although most particularly in the lead up, during and following in country visits. SPs must be invited to visit a country but, once invited, their visits are covered by a broad set of agreed “terms of reference” which give them broad powers to visit places, talk to people, and conduct inquiries.

SP country visits can bring enormous amounts of attention, including in the international media to a particular situation and they can thus be useful to NPMs wishing to draw attention to particular situations or themes that it views as a priority.

In particular, NPMs may wish to do some or all of the following in relation to SP country visits:

• encourage the government to issue an invitation, in particular to the UNSRT;
• brief the mandate holder before, during and after the visit, including offering advice on which places to visit and who to meet;
• brief NGOs and relevant government officials on the visit;
• make submissions to the SP in relation to specific findings or recommendations;
• following the country report conduct advocacy in relation to its key recommendations; and
• conduct follow-up visits to any places of deprivation of liberty that were visited by the SP, including to prevent reprisals.
• Make reference to SP recommendations in future NPM reports

Regional Monitoring Bodies

Where they exist, it may also be useful for NPMs to interact with regional detention monitoring bodies, such as the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).

The CPT, which was established under the “European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”, which came into force in 1989, has a mandate to conduct visits in all 47 member states of the Council of Europe. Delegations of CPT members and experts carry out periodic and ad hoc visits to places of deprivation of liberty, after which they send a report to the state with findings and recommendations. It also requests a state response, which forms the basis for an ongoing exchange. While these reports are not always made public, it may be useful for NPMs to engage with the CPT, including by sharing information, reports, priorities and recommendations. At the start of a CPT country visit, it may also be useful for the NPM to meet with the delegation to discuss priority issues. In addition, the CPT has a practice of inviting the NPM to their debriefing meeting with the authorities at the end of the visit. If the CPT report is public, it might be useful for the NPM to reference its recommendations and conclusions in its own reports, as a way of strengthening its arguments vis-à-vis the authorities.

The IACHR is one of the institutions of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, together with of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Among its main functions, the Commission and its thematic rapporteurships deal with individual petitions, monitor the human rights situation in the States that are members of the Organization of American States, including through country visits, publish country and thematic reports, and contribute to the development of human rights standards, including related to deprivation of liberty.

Country visits from the Commission or its rapporteurships, such as the one on the Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty and to Prevent and Combat Torture, can be useful for NPMs to draw attention to particular situations or issues of concern. Concretely, NPMs can:

• brief the Commissioner(s) or Rapporteur before, during and after the visit, including offering advice on which places to visit and who to meet, and sharing findings and recommendations;
• issue a press release or other communications following the visit and the country report in relation to its key recommendations;  
• conduct follow-up visits to any places of deprivation of liberty that were visited by the IACHR or its rapporteurships, including to prevent reprisals; and
• make reference to the IACHR findings and recommendations in future NPM reports.

Other ways for NPMs to interact with the IACHR include contributing with inputs to thematic reports or standards developed by the Commission, participating in IACHR country or thematic hearings, and providing information on specific issues of serious concern beyond country visits. The IACHR may rely on this information to publish a public statement on the issue, establish a dialogue with the relevant national authorities, and even request that a State adopt precautionary measures.

Networks of oversight bodies

By virtue of their structure, many NPMs are members of existing international and regional networks of oversight bodies. These include networks of NHRIs, such as GANRHI (and its regional networks), networks of ombuds institutions, such as the IOI, and specific NPM networks, such as the network of South East European NPMs.

While each network varies, there are some commonalities in the ways that they may be useful partners for NPMs.

Training and capacity building is one of these. Many networks offer training on a range of issues of interest to NPMs, including both institutional development and thematic issues related to detention. NPM networks can also be important sources of advice and expertise, whether it is through informal WhatsApp groups or Slack channels or more structured meetings and exchanges.

International and regional networks have also been active in the past in relation to reprisals against their member institutions. GANHRI for example has been quick to condemn attacks on the independence or funding of its member NHRIs. By raising their profile and working together, NPMs can use networks to respond collectively to threats made against them, while also bringing them to the attention of the media and other human rights mechanisms.  

Regional human rights courts.

In relation to regional courts, some European NPMs that are also NHRIs  have provided information to the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights as amicus curiae. Similarly, many NPMs also follow the decisions of regional courts, including the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and reference their decisions in their reports, where they are relevant to national issues. 

Other bodies and processes

Interactions at the international and regional level can also be useful in the longer term if NPMs are able to contribute to standard setting – for example by feeding their national experience into discussions around updates to documents like the Nelson Mandela Rules. Sometimes national practices can be ahead of regional and international standards and NPMs can help to raise the level by bringing these practices to the fore.

Other international organizations can also be useful to NPMs, in particular where they have  regional and/or national offices. Regional and national offices of institutions such as UNICEF, UNDP, and OHCHR, for example, can be useful sources of expertise and funding for NPMs. Many of these organisations can also be key allies of NPMs in raising issues of concern to the national authorities.

The first and most important reason that NPMs may wish to engage with international and regional bodies is in order to help them to achieve their own objectives. When thinking about why and when to engage, NPMs will need to keep this primary objective in mind, particularly given the time and expense that such interaction may involve for institutions with already limited resources.

Nevertheless, engagement with international and regional bodies can be a powerful tool, helping NPMs to:

• achieve their aims in relation to deprivation of liberty,
• learn and strengthen themselves and others as institutions,
• contribute to the development of standards and good practices, and
• be better protected from reprisals.

Engagement with international and regional partners, can also be a way for NPMs to contribute to strengthening the human rights system as a whole. This may include sharing information both with international and regional bodies, as well as good practices and ideas among NPMs and other oversight bodies themselves.

A large number of different international and regional actors may be relevant to the work of NPMs. These include:

UN Treaty bodies, most notably: the Committee against Torture (CAT) and the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT), as well as the Human Rights Committee,  the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).  

It also includes peer networks that NPMs may be a part of depending on their composition, including: the Global Alliance of NHRIs (GANHRI) and its different regional networks, the Association Francophone des Commissions Nationales de Droits de l’Homme (AFCNDH) and the International Ombudsman Institute (IOI).

In some regions there are also regional monitoring bodies, such as the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), the Committee for the Prevention of Torture in Africa (CPTA), the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) that conduct country visits, including to places of detention and produce reports, recommendations and guidance that may be of use to NPMs.

International and regional courts may also be relevant to the work of NPMs, in particular the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the African Court on Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Other UN and regional human rights bodies and mechanisms may also be useful to NPMs. These include, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) and its special procedures, in particular the Special Rapporteur on Torture, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and those with mandates relating to specific groups in situations of vulnerability. It also includes regional human rights mechanisms, such as the thematic rapporteurships of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in particular the one on rights of persons deprived of liberty.

The list of bodies that may be relevant to the work of NPMs can quickly become very long indeed. It is thus important to stress at the outset that NPMs do not need to engage with all (or even any) of them all of the time. Indeed, it will be important for NPMs to only do so when it helps them to achieve change in detention, something that is addressed in the other questions in this tool.

Note that, due to their particular relationship, enshrined in the OPCAT, interactions between NPMs and the SPT are dealt with in their own tool.

Dialogue should be the guiding principle in all activities conducted by the NPM. However, it may have some limitations.

Dialogue requires willingness and inclusion of both parties. Genuine and meaningful engagement is possible only if there is trust and respect between the NPM and the authorities, and if the NPM preserves its independence. It is important that the NPM does not let only authorities dictate the terms on which the dialogue takes place.

In some circumstances, NPMs may need to draw a line when it comes to dialogue with the authorities and take a different approach. For example, it may be helpful to also approach the media or mobilise other national or international actors when there is an urgent and serious issue uncovered, or when there is a lack of engagement from authorities over the long term. Even in those cases, it is important for NPMs to try to keep some form of interaction with the authorities, because they are the ones who have the responsibility to bring about change.

Dialogue can take different forms. NPMs can engage in bilateral dialogue with one institution at a time, but also have dialogue with several institutions at the same time. For example, some NPMs hold inter-institutional roundtables to discuss specific issues that involve different authorities. In some countries, for example, NPMs have convened a series of meetings with the police, the Ministry of Health and judicial actors to advance the implementation of detention safeguards.  NPMs also organise discussions with the authorities on their draft recommendations, in order to ensure buy-in at an early stage. Some NPMs hold annual meetings with the authorities, for instance the OPCAT focal points within each relevant institution, to review the implementation of their recommendations and analyse what has or has not been done, and why. The holistic approach, authority and independence place the NPM in a privileged position to bridge the dialogue gap between different authorities, but also between authorities and civil society actors.

For dialogue to be meaningful and effective, it is essential for NPMs to target the relevant institutions and the key actors within those institutions. It is also important to engage regularly over time. A good practice is having focal points designated within ministries and other relevant institutions, with whom NPMs can have more informal and regular exchanges.

Many NPMs request answers in writing about the implementation of their recommendations from the authorities, often with a deadline for response. In addition to the written and formal exchange, it is highly recommended to have closed face-to-face or online meetings with the authorities and also maintain informal exchanges via telephone or other means (such as WhatsApp for instance) to build trust, overcome resistance, understand what are the restrictions and challenges of the authorities, and reach agreements.

Depending on the NPM, the heads, members and staff of the institution may have different responsibilities when it comes to dialogue with the authorities. This may depend also on the dialogue format and addresses, for instance whether the dialogue involves high-level authorities or technical staff. While there is no single model applicable to all NPMs, it is important that NPMs clearly define in advance the responsibilities relating to dialogue with the authorities within their team.

NPMs may enter into dialogue with authorities at different moments, in relation to visits to places of detention or beyond visits, depending on the specific objective of the dialogue.

Dialogue related to visits to places of deprivation of liberty may take place at different stages. Its timing and process are crucial to maintaining a sustained and constructive relation with the authorities and ensure that recommendations are effectively implemented.

Dialogue between the NPM and the authorities starts already before NPMs start carrying out visits to places of deprivation of liberty, to explain their mandate and inform the authorities about their obligation to provide unrestricted access to the NPMs. NPMs’ experience shows that taking the time to introduce their mandate to the authorities at an early stage can avoid problems during visits.

During the visit, the NPM engages in dialogue both with the authorities in charge of running the place and the staff working there. It is important that NPMs take enough time to conduct the visit, enabling to build a positive relationship with the authorities since the beginning of the visit, to make sure that they are clear about the methodology and objectives of the visit. At the same time, to ensure compliance of the authorities, NPMs need to maintain their independence and project authority and professionalism. To do that, it is important for NPMs to abide by key principles for monitoring places of detention, including being respectful of the authorities in charge of the place and the staff working there, being accurate and objective, and behaving with integrity.

Following the visit, many NPMs send the draft visit report and recommendations confidentially to the authorities. This allows the NPM to receive early feedback and eventually correct any factual errors.  It is worth noting that such practice does not mean that authorities would influence the content of the report. It refers to factual information that could be amended, such as the total number of detainees in one place. This information is not the result of the NPM’s analysis and findings, but it refers to objective data that was communicated to them by the authorities. Some NPMs also have face-to-face interactions with the authorities to discuss orally their draft reports and recommendations, promoting transparency, encouraging a constructive relationship and increasing the possibility of implementation of recommendations. Once the final report is shared with the authorities and made public, NPMs engage in a sustained dialogue process to follow-up on their recommendations and ensure their implementation. In practice, it means not only relying on written exchanges such as emails or official correspondence, but also – and most importantly – maintaining face-to-face or online meetings and informal interactions, for instance via telephone or WhatsApp, to establish trust .

NPMs have direct interactions with the authorities also beyond their recommendations following visits to places of detention, for example to discuss relevant thematic issues or to advocate for legal and policy changes. NPMs are also regularly consulted on specific issues and provide expert advice to authorities.

The NPMs’ holistic approach requires identifying possible root causes of the problems encountered, as well as the risks that increase the possibility of torture and other forms of ill-treatment to occur. Therefore, NPMs need to analyse not only the conditions and functioning of places of detention, but also the broader regulatory, institutional, policy and legal frameworks.  

This is why NPMs need to engage with a variety of authorities at different levels:

• Authorities responsible for running places of detention (i.e. directors of prisons, directors of psychiatric institutions).
• Staff working in places of deprivation of liberty, including prison guards, nurses, social workers, police officers and immigration officers.
• Line Ministries and supervising authorities of places of deprivation of liberty or services within those places, such as the Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Health, Immigration Service, Penitentiary Service. Within those institutions, it is important for NPMs to engage both at the political/high-level and technical one, with specific departments that are relevant for their work.
• Other Ministries or specialised agencies or departments of the executive branch, such as the Ministry of Finance, Human Rights Secretariat, Women Secretariat.

When they start to be operational, it is recommended that NPMs map out the institutions - and departments within each institution – that are relevant to their work, and then have a first meeting with them, including to explain their mandate. NPMs would also need to regularly review and update the institutional mapping. Mapping out the relevant institutions allows NPMs to better target their dialogue and be strategic in their interactions. A useful and practical tool to do that is the stakeholder mapping.

While the main addressees of NPM dialogue are authorities from the executive branch, NPMs also interact with members of Parliament and judicial actors, such as judges and public defenders. They may be the addressees of some NPMs’ recommendations but, more often, maintaining dialogue with these actors is instrumental to build collaboration, for instance to get NPMs’ recommendations implemented by the executive authorities.  

The OPCAT places a specific obligation on the authorities to enter into a dialogue with NPMs in relation to their recommendations (Article 22). Although no similar obligation is clearly set for NPMs under the treaty, it is widely recognised that dialogue forms the core of their preventive mandate, as also established by the SPT in its Analytical assessment tool for NPMs, (CAT/OP/1/Rev.1, para. 9(a)).

Dialogue with the authorities may serve different purposes. It is key to achieve long-term and sustainable changes, especially considering that recommendations made by NPMs are usually not binding on the authorities. Having a meaningful and sustained dialogue is an essential tool in the hands of NPMs to give further explanations to the authorities regarding the problems observed and the recommendations issued. Dialogue is also very important to understand the point of view and challenges faced by the authorities in implementing NPM recommendations, to identify good practices and, on this basis, to discuss possible solutions to the problems encountered. Dialogue also creates a constructive climate that helps overcoming resistance and bringing about change.

Dialogue is also key to make the institution and its mandate known by the relevant authorities. It allows NPMs to build their legitimacy and to position themselves as reference institutions on issues related to deprivation of liberty, in order to exercise leverage and increase the impact of their recommendations.

The NPM also engages in dialogue with the authorities to ensure its own sustainability over time, for example by discussing and agreeing upon its annual budget with the competent authority. Dialogue is also helpful – although in some cases not sufficient – to overcome obstacles that NPMs may face in the implementation of their mandate, for example, when they are denied access to a specific place of detention.

Dialogue with the authorities is at the heart of the preventive approach underpinning the OPCAT and the work of NPMs. It is a meaningful and sustained process of engagement with a wide range of authorities, in order to achieve the desired changes. It consists of a series of direct interactions through different means, including face-to-face contacts such as meetings with prison directors at the end of a monitoring visit or thematic roundtables with relevant authorities. Dialogue is not a mere administrative process. It goes beyond the simple exchange of written correspondence as it relies on relationships.

Dialogue with the authorities requires NPMs to develop constructive and collaborative – but critical - working relationships with the authorities, based on mutual respect and trust. This may entail some level of confidentiality regarding the information shared between NPMs and authorities. Maintaining a constructive relationship is not synonym of complaisance though. In this respect, it is very important for NPMs to preserve their independence when engaging in dialogue with the authorities.

Experience shows that establishing and maintaining dialogue takes time. Therefore, NPMs need to consider it in their strategy and dedicate enough time and resources to it in their planning.

Different modalities exist with regard to how NPMs select and work with external experts. Independently of how experts are being recruited, it is important that the NPM establishes and publishes clear rules for their remuneration. Experience shows that, to guarantee adequate participation of external experts, it is recommended to remunerate them for the tasks they undertake (visit, report writing, participation in meetings) and at the very least reimburse them for the expenses related to their NPM work (including travel, accommodation and food).
Below is a broad categorisation of some of the existing modalities of NPMs’ work with external experts:

1. A pool of individual experts, usually contracted following a public call, and available, as part of the pool, to perform different NPM functions during a specific time period.
2. Individual experts recruited on an ad hoc basis to accompany visits (outside of any official pool).
3. Individual experts recruited as per an agreement between the NPM and an association or organisation (e.g. professional association, NGO, etc.) but who will be working in their individual capacity

In all instances and whatever the modality of recruitment, it is important for the NPM to ensure proper induction/training of all external experts, adequate participation prior to and after the visits, as well as formal accreditation beforehand with the authorities to ensure external experts’ access to the places of detention.

It is important to develop clear guidelines and procedures for receiving and handling complaints. When the NPM is part of a larger institution, it is recommended to develop these guidelines in coordination with the rest of the institution.
NPMs may need to consider and clarify the following aspects:
Internal organisation: Most existing National Human Rights Institutions designated as NPMs have a complaint or investigation department, which is a distinct structure from the NPM, with separate personnel and record keeping system. The NPM and the complaint or investigation department could hold regular meetings and share a common database for complaints, to ensure synergies. Specialised institutions created to perform only the NPM’s tasks may decide to designate a focal point or create a specific unit in charge of dealing with complaints.
Receipt, analysis and classification: In developing guidelines on complaints, NPMs need to be clear about the means through which they can receive them. NPMs also need to decide how to acknowledge receipt, especially in case of written complaints. NPMs may need to clarify who, within the team, is in charge of recording, classifying and, eventually, following-up on complaints. It may be useful for NPMs to determine criteria based on which they would classify the complaints and decide on the actions to take (for example, the seriousness or urgency of the complaint), particularly for NPMs that are not part of larger institutions with a mandate to handle individual complaints.
Recording and systematisation: To allow NPMs to identify patterns and use complaints in their preventive work, it is important to adequately record all complaints received. Whatever the tool chosen, it is useful for NPMs to record the following information upon receipt:

• The type of complaint
• Name of  the person/s concerned (if relevant)
• The theme which the complaint is about
• The institution which the complaint refers to
• The action taken by the NPM in response to the complaint

NPMs could also record data on follow-up and outcome of most relevant complaints.
Confidentiality, consent and protection of data: The protection of the persons who have been in contact with the NPM, either in writing or during interviews should always be an absolute priority for NPMs (in accordance with the principle of “do no harm”).

In this regard, NPMs have a duty of confidentiality, as defined in Article 21 of the OPCAT and in the SPT’s advice, which provide that personal data should not be published without the express and informed consent of the concerned person. This obligation is the general rule for NPMs. However, in exceptional circumstances, the “do no harm” principle may require NPMs to carefully consider sharing some personal information gathered in their work with other responsible and independent bodies (such as the medical service or the Public Prosecutor’s Office), even without the consent of the concerned person.
Exceptional circumstances could include situations indicating cases of torture or other serious human rights violations, where seeking consent from the detainee would increase the risk of reprisals.  Other circumstances could include cases where a person is not in a position to give express and informed consent. In such cases, the NPM should make all efforts to gather and emphasise correlating information from other sources than the detainee, such as accounts by staff members and documents.
NPMs should also take measures to protect sensitive information in their possession, for example by storing it on a secured software and/or locked cabinet.
Protection against reprisals: NPMs should strive to take measures to prevent possible reprisals against the detained persons concerned. These measures may include, for instance, interviewing a large group of persons deprived of liberty, in order to prevent custody staff from identifying the interviewed detainees, reviewing a large number of individual files, and carry out follow-up visits to directly ensure that no reprisals are being taken against those who have communicated with the NPM.
Depending on the nature of the concern and the management of the place of detention, the NPM may also wish to consider informing directly the management while respecting the confidentiality, for instance by generally referring to indications of harassment from particular staff members towards detainees. If the NPMs considers that the situation of a person deprived of liberty is particularly worrisome, it may also decide to leave its contact information with the detainee.

In practice, most NPMs recruit external experts to participate in visits to places of deprivation of liberty, one of the central components of NPM mandates, during which they may be given specific tasks based on their field of expertise and competences. Their role shall, however, go beyond the participation in the visit itself. To ensure a common and coherent approach within the visiting team, external experts should always be integrated in the preparation of the visit. This will also allow the NPM to benefit from external experts’ knowledge from the initial stages of visit planning (e.g. in identifying issues to be examined and relevant sources of information on specific aspects to be looked at during the visit). Experts should therefore be informed from the early stage of recruitment that their responsibilities will include an active involvement and participation in preparatory meetings, which require investing time prior to visits.

After the visits, external experts should also be able to contribute to internal debriefings and to the drafting of the visit report. Experts can be asked to draft some relevant sections of the report, to send written inputs based on their observations during the visits and/or to review and comment on the different versions of the report. Whatever the modality chosen for the drafting process itself, external experts should have the opportunity to comment on the draft report of a visit they participated in.

Complaints raised to NPMs can feed the NPM’s preventive work in a number of different ways. They constitute important indicators of systemic problems and a valuable source of information for NPMs’ work. Therefore, it is important that NPMs are able to keep record and systematise all complaints received, to be able to identify patterns and integrate them in the NPMs’ overall strategy.
Complaints could help NPMs identifying priority issues to be addressed through legislative and policy reforms. They could also be used in the preparation and conduct of visits to places of detention, as they can help NPMs to determine which places of detention and which issues to prioritise in their programme of visits. Complaints are also useful for the preparation and realisation of visits to a place of detention, as they may help NPMs to select which issues to focus on during the visit and, therefore, the specific expertise required within the monitoring team, and whom to interview during the visit. Furthermore, complaints often constitute one of the main criteria for the NPM to decide whether to carry out ad hoc visits, to further investigating issues of particular concern, or exceptionally reactive visits, to inquire into specific and individual allegations.     
Although complaints may be an important source of information, they should not be considered by the NPM as the only criteria to decide on its priorities and actions. A lack of complaints does not equal a lack of problems. On the contrary, the absence of complaints can also be a sign of problems. For instance, some persons, especially those in situations of vulnerability, may not be able or willing to complain about their treatment or conditions. Furthermore, in many cases persons deprived of liberty do not complain due to fear of reprisals by the authorities or by their peers.
Complaints could also be used by NPMs as evidence to illustrate the problems identified in the course of their activities. In their reports and regular meetings/contacts with authorities, many NPMs use to refer to the complaints received, without naming the concerned person, in order to reinforce their findings and recommendations and, in some cases, also to follow-up on issues raised in series of complaints.
Finally, when NPMs receive complaints related to places of detention and/or issues already addressed in previous recommendations, those complaints can constitute important indicators for the lack of implementation of NPMs’ recommendations, and can thus be integrated in the NPM’s follow-up strategies.

As in question 2 above, how to coordinate can be broken down into both technical and strategic aspects.

Technical coordination
How to coordinate with other bodies who undertake visits will be dependent on the structure and situation of the NPM, and on the structure and situations of the other body or bodies including whether or not they are independent from government.

Some NPMs have an informal relationship with other bodies where they may meet or share information when a need or issue arises. Others have a relationship that is formalised by a memorandum of understanding, which sets out each party’s requirements and responsibilities. How the bodies and the NPM decide to cooperate will depend on their specific mandates, needs, and relationship to the government.

A good practice is to consider who should be in contact with whom. It may be appropriate for the NPM chair(s) and staff to have working relationships at different levels with other bodies. It may be useful to have an established point of contact within each body.

NPMs coordinate with other bodies in various ways. Some hold regular meetings, hold meetings on an ad hoc basis, undertake joint visits, co-operate on certain issues, exchange information, and undertake joint activities such as conducting training.

In exchanging information a NPM needs to be careful to respect confidentiality, security, and sensitivity of information. NPMs should be guided by the do no harm principle.  
A new NPM should ascertain what other bodies conducting visits exist within their state. The NPM may wish to meet with them to establish a relationship and discuss how to ensure continued cooperation.

Finally, it is important to underline that when engaging in cooperation, the NPM must nevertheless be careful to remain independent. Coordination and cooperation do not necessarily mean agreement. This is particularly important in the context of visits and information sharing, where a precondition to cooperation must be to ensure that other monitoring bodies fully respect the do no harm principle and the confidentiality and security of information.

Strategic coordination
Following on from the points made in question 2 above, the NPM has a variety of ways in which it can maximize its impact by engaging strategically with other monitoring bodies.
This can be done in relation to the three levels of: understanding, thematic perspectives, and methodology.

Strategic coordination may involve training and education for staff of other monitoring bodies on the added value of the preventive approach. It also includes dialogue at different levels on both the approach and on particular themes and priorities. NPMs may also choose to direct specific recommendations at other monitoring bodies in order to encourage them to change or adopt particular practices or methods or to take on particular priorities.

External experts are neither NPM members nor NPM staff. This external status means that they do not have the same level of responsibilities and, in particular, that they should not conduct visits on their own (i.e. without the presence of an NPM staff or member). During visits, external experts should, however, be considered on an equal footing with NPM members and staff and be formally accredited beforehand with the authorities to ensure their access to the places being visited.

Newly recruited experts should, despite their external status, receive an initial training that includes an introduction to the NPM mandate and internal regulations, and how these apply to external experts. This initial training should ensure a common understanding of the NPM mandate and therefore a coherent approach in external experts’ contribution to the NPM work. In addition to this initial training, it is important that external experts be also involved in continuous trainings offered to NPM staff and members so that they are up-to-date on developments that are relevant when monitoring with the NPM.

External experts should, in addition, be entitled to privileges and immunities in the course of their NPM duties, both during and after their collaboration with the NPM, as required under OPCAT article 35 for NPM members. Those include, in particular, immunity from personal arrest, detention and seizure of personal baggage as well as immunity from seizure or surveillance of papers and documents. These immunities should be specified in experts’ contracts with the NPM, in order to avoid confusions as to when these privileges and immunities apply and to ensure that external experts do not misuse their NPM status. It should be clear that experts enjoy NPM-related immunities and privileges only when acting on behalf of the NPM and not when performing other functions.

Finally, NPM external experts also have obligations that should be specified from the recruitment stage and spelled out in their contract. These include maintaining confidentiality of all information accessed while working for the NPM - the information that must remain privileged - and in particular the fact that, as specified in the OPCAT (article 21.2), personal data cannot be published or used without the consent of the person concerned.

It is very important for NPMs to clarify their preventive mandate as to avoid creating false expectations about their work. They can do so in a number of ways such as: during interviews with persons deprived of liberty; during meetings with the authorities; on their institutional website; in their annual reports; in their information material (brochures, videos).
Interviews with persons deprived of liberty are the cornerstone of almost any visit to a place of detention and they require careful thought and handling. NPMs should therefore pay particular attention to explain their mandate at the start of each interview in a very clear and simple way, to avoid creating the impression that the person’s individual situation is going to be handled and improve as a result of the NPM’s visit. Clarity about the aim of the interview is also key to create a relationship of trust and credibility with the person to be interviewed.
On closing the interview, NPMs should make sure that persons deprived of their liberty are left with the impression to have made a contribution to the NPM’s work aimed at improving the treatment and conditions of detention in general.

The Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) has stated that a “NPM should establish sustainable lines of communication [...] with other relevant national and international actors in the field of prevention of torture, including the SPT, and with civil society organisations”.

While keeping in mind the unique role, mandate, and independence of the NPM, coordination can be useful at a technical level and strategically: to maximize the impact of the NPM.

Technical cooperation
Coordination between bodies that visit places of detention will enable each of the bodies to perform their specific role while not duplicating the work of other bodies. Working together should also enhance efficiency and effectiveness. Bodies are able to share, collate, and check information with each other. They can discuss issues, how solutions may be implemented, follow-up on implementation, and advocate for changes. Each body will have its own role and mandate, and be able to contribute to these discussions from their own point of view.
NPMs and other bodies may be able to share information about issues that they are seeing. Exchanging information is particularly important for NPMs who do not have a complaints function. Receiving information about complaints from another body can enable a NPM to identify ongoing issues, aid discussion on which place or places of detention to visit, and contribute to developing the strategy or plan of the NPM. Because they often have access to more information (including person information) than other monitoring bodies, in exchanging information NPMs need to be extremely careful to respect the confidentiality, security, and sensitivity of that information.

Coordinating with other bodies in the follow-up of recommendations may be beneficial. The other bodies may be able to provide information on the implementation of recommendations. When a recommendation is not being implemented they can discuss the reasons why and possible means of ensuring implementation.

When views align they can work together on issues, advocating for changes, and ensuring implementation. Bodies may be able to cooperate to push for implementation of recommendations and rectification of issues together as a coalition. Creating change can be more effective when numerous bodies are advocating for the same or similar recommendations.

Strategic cooperation
Beyond these more technical aspects of cooperation, it is important to underline the strategic benefit for NPMs of working with others. In particular, by targeting other monitoring and inspection bodies through recommendations and dialogue, NPMs can encourage them, over time, to work in a more preventive way.

Influencing the methodology, thematic perspectives and understanding of the importance of torture prevention among other monitoring bodies can make them work in a more torture preventive way. This has an important multiplier effect because specialised monitoring bodies may be more regularly in specific detention environments than the NPM, with its broad mandate covering all types of places.

In many countries, for example, sectors covered by the NPM mandate have dedicated supervisory or inspectorate bodies. Follow-up with such bodies is key to prevention, including by pointing out the weaknesses and strengths of the various supervisory bodies’ focuses and working methods.

The importance of this kind of cooperation has been stressed by a number of NPMs who see other monitoring bodies as both a key source of information as well as a key target of recommendations and advocacy. Among the most sustainable achievements of NPMs may be changes not only in conditions and treatment in detention but also changes in the practices and procedures of other monitoring bodies.

The OPCAT (article 18) requirements of independence, capabilities and professional knowledge for NPM staff and members should equally apply to external experts who will officially represent the NPM. NPMs should be aware that conflicts of interest may arise when external experts exercise other functions outside their NPM work that can interfere with their duties as NPM experts. Such conflicts of interest can manifest themselves in different ways, for example when a medical doctor is reluctant to question the practices of his/her peers during a visit or when an expert (lawyer, NGO expert) has access to confidential information during an NPM visit that could also be of use for his/her activities outside the NPM. The NPM should ensure that all external experts are bound by and respect the confidentiality of the information gathered during NPM visits. If an external expert regularly conducts visits to or provides services in places of detention outside the NPM, it should be aware that their presence in the NPM visiting team could create confusions with regard to their role and lead to questioning of the NPM working methods and future findings by the detention authorities, due to the perceived lack of independence of this expert.

When working for the NPM, the role of external experts should prevail over their main profession or function exercised outside the NPM. It is therefore essential to make clear in the experts’ contracts (and/or in a code of conduct applicable to those working for the NPM), that they must prioritise the NPM’s interest when acting on its behalf and that they do not act in their individual capacity, nor do they represent the other organisation/institution they work for outside the NPM.

Most NPMs, if not all, regularly receive complaints in the context of and outside visits. The challenge for NPMs is to decide how to respond to these complaints within their preventive mandate.
The NPM’s mandate under the OPCAT is very specific and specialised. It focuses on preventing abuses from occurring by: monitoring the treatment of persons in detention settings, as well as laws, policies and procedures that have an impact on those places and on persons deprived of liberty; identifying patterns and systemic risks of torture and other forms of ill-treatment; and proposing possible measures to reduce the risk of ill-treatment. NPMs’ preventive visits usually take place proactively, rather than in response to any specific event or complaint, even when there is no apparent problem. Therefore, NPMs differ from other institutions, both judicial and non-judicial, whose focus is on investigating and solving individual cases and complaints.
In deciding how to handle complaints, it is important for NPMs to consider some of the related challenges , which may also differ depending on the type of NPM.
Demanding task: Experience shows that handling complaints is very demanding in terms of human and financial resources and can easily divert the NPM from its core mandate. The risk is that NPMs only respond to urgent requests and leave aside the preventive actions that should be at the heart of their work. Therefore, it is very important for NPMs to develop clear guidelines or procedures to handle complaints.
Expectations: The more NPMs are known, the more they receive information and complaints, thus feeling pressured to handle them in order to maintain their credibility. Information is key for the NPMs’ work, so they should be able to receive information from a variety of sources. However, it is important to clarify what they can or cannot do with such information, to avoid creating expectations that cannot be met and thus damaging their reputation.
Ombuds Institutions and National Human Rights Commissions: When NPMs are part of broader institutions with a mandate to handle individual complaints, it may be easier to create an internal separation of functions and, at the same time, ensure regular exchange of information and synergies. Most of the existing Ombuds Institutions and National Human Rights Commissions designated as NPMs have a complaint or investigation department, which is a distinct structure from the NPM, with separate personnel and record keeping system.  
In practice, NPMs that are part of larger institutions can refer the complaints received to the specific department within the institution that is competent for investigating them and doing the specific and individual follow-up. The complaint or investigation department, for its part, can share the complaints related to places of detention to the NPM.
Specialised institutions: Some NPMs that are specialised institutions have the additional function, provided by law, to handle and even investigate complaints. In such cases, it is key to establish clear guidelines and procedures and ensure that the core of the NPM’s mandate remains preventive in essence. The NPM may also decide to adopt a strategic approach to handling complaints and carefully select few emblematic ones to follow-up on in view of contributing to changes beyond the single case.

As well as a NPM there may be other bodies carrying out visits to places of detention or undertaking work that is relevant to the NPM mandate. These visits may be regular or may be on an ad hoc basis.

• Internal inspectorates. Many states have established internal inspectorates within or as a government body. They are characterised by their dependence upon the authorities they are meant to supervise. They may be based within a specific ministry or department, for example an internal prison inspectorate based within the agency responsible for prisons, or may be a department in themselves. An internal inspectorate’s role can be limited to checking or auditing compliance with procedures and policies, or broader to include respect for human dignity and human rights.
• Other independent bodies. A National Human Rights Institution and/or Ombudsperson usually has a broad mandate to monitor and promote respect for human rights, and may have the power to examine individual complaints. Some states have specialised ombudsmen institutions focused on a specific topic, for example an Ombudsperson for children or for the military.  Although they may not be a NPM, their mandates may extend to visiting places of detention and to issues of criminal justice.
• In some states specialised oversight bodies have been established. These bodies often have a double mandate both to examine conditions of detention in the places under that Ministry’s control and advise the Ministry on necessary improvements. For example, some states have health inspectors who monitor the quality and safety of mental health and disability services.
• Lay visitors. Some states have a scheme allowing members of the public to visit certain places of detention. Members of the public are appointed as being able to carry out this role. They can visit certain places of detention, see the facilities, inspect records, and observe interactions between staff and those who are detained.
• NGOs. Human rights NGOs and civil society groups may get authorisation to visit places of detention based on agreement with the authorities or within law or regulations. These visits may be on a regular basis or may be ad hoc.
• Parliamentarians. In some states members of parliament or a parliamentary commission have the mandate or powers to visit places of detention. This mandate varies; in some states parliamentarians can visit without authorisation whereas in others they must seek permission first.
• Judges and prosecutors. In some states judges and/or prosecutors have the mandate to visit places of detention. This may be to conduct general monitoring of conditions or for a specific purpose, such as to guarantee the individualisation of a sentence or to offer an appeal of the authorities’ decisions.

An external expert is an individual who is recruited by the NPM to support specific NPM activities and who is neither staff nor a member of the NPM. External experts are most often recruited to support the NPM in conducting visits to places of deprivation of liberty, although some also contribute to other NPM functions (e.g. legal advice). This definition does not include the modality by which an ombuds institution has concluded a formal agreement with civil society organisations to fulfil its NPM mandate (Ombuds plus model), as per an official act or decision upon (or following) designation of this institution as NPM.

NPMs’ broad mandate under the OPCAT requires a diversity of expertise to effectively monitor the specificities of different detention settings, understand and address the causes of the problems faced by persons deprived of their liberty, including those belonging to groups in situation of vulnerability. Achieving multi-disciplinarity within the NPM is, however, a challenge, in particular for smaller NPMs who do not have sufficient internal human resources but sometimes also for well-resourced NPMs. To respond to this challenge and fulfil their broad OPCAT mandate, NPMs may need to call on experts with varied sets of skills. Such expertise can include specific professional or technical skills (in fields as diverse as law, medicine, psychiatry, psychology, sociology, anthropology, nutrition or architecture), specific experience on certain types of places or knowledge on particular groups in situation of vulnerability that will enhance the visiting team’s capacity to better understand the needs of those groups (e.g. women, LGBTI persons, children, persons with disabilities).

Another form of expertise integrated by some NPMs is the personal “lived experience” (or “experts by experience”, for example former users of psychiatric services). The presence of these experts is valuable in that their lived experience sheds a different light on the aspects to be considered when monitoring and places the visiting team in a better position to build trust with the persons deprived of liberty that it may interact with during visits.

In this toolkit, complaints are defined as requests to the NPM relating to treatment, conditions or other situations in detention. These requests are made mainly by persons deprived of their liberty, but they may also come from someone acting on their behalf, such as family members or lawyers, or from other individuals such as staff members.
Complaints may be raised to the NPM in the context of visits to places of detention, orally or in writing, or outside visits, through different means including mail, telephone and email. Many NPMs that are part of larger institutions may also receive complaints from other departments (see below).
In the presence of complaints, it is important for the NPM to first analyse whether it is the best positioned to respond and, if so, what type of action it may take. This is particularly relevant for NPMs that are not part of broader institutions with a mandate to handle individual complaints, which often feel pressured to handle complaints Therefore, it is very important to establish criteria to receive and classify the complaints, and decide on the actions to take. 

The following actions may be taken by the NPM to react to complaints:

• Some situations brought to the attention of the NPM during visits can, with the consent of the person concerned, be immediately addressed by informing the management of the institution, in order for it to take the necessary action, including educational or disciplinary measures or replacement of staff, when required.
• At the same time, or if the management of the place does not take the required action, the NPM can notify, make recommendations to and follow-up with the responsible authorities (for example, the medical service within the facility, the penitentiary service, the Ministry of Justice, etc.).
• In other cases, depending on the seriousness of the issue, NPMs may also decide to carry out ad-hoc or reactive visits.
• NPMs can also refer complaints to other institutions. For specialised institutions, it is recommended, whenever possible, to refer complaints to a specialised and independent institution other than the NPM, to preserve its focus on the preventive mandate. NPMs would need to clarify to which institutions they can refer complaints, for instance Ombuds Institutions, National Human Rights Commissions or independent complaints mechanisms, and which information they should share, for example whether they will share only their preliminary findings or also concrete evidence and support documentation such as transcription of interviews. When NPMs are part of broader institutions with complaints handling powers, such as National Human Rights Institutions, they may refer complaints to another department of the institution in charge of investigating complaints. In all cases, it is important for the NPM to be able to follow-up on a few complaints to assess the effectiveness of the existing complaints mechanisms. Finally, NPMs can refer these cases to other specialised institutions with a mandate to handle individual complaints, for example specialised ombuds institutions for children, police, armed forces, etc. In some cases, this may require MoU or other formal agreements.