NPM Toolkit

Visit reports are different from internal notes kept by NPMs on their visits. It is recommended that the visiting team draw up internal notes on their visits and save them as written trace and record of each visit, thus contributing to the NPM’s institutional memory. 

Internal notes serve as internal resources for the drafting of visit reports by the NPM team but not everything needs to be included in the final visit report. The NPM will likely choose strategically what information to include in the report, depending on the objectives that have been established for the visit.  

Usually internal notes focus on information gathered prior to and during the visit by the NPM. They include first hand observations, notes from interviews, photographs or sketches and information from registers and other relevant documentation. As a general rule, internal notes do not include references to the legal framework or in depth analysis or recommendations, which will be drafted later, as part of the visit report itself. 

The OPCAT provides only an obligation to publish the NPM annual report. However, as NPMs (in contrast with the SPT) are not bound by the rule of confidentiality, it is recommended that they publish visit reports, either one at a time or in collections covering several visits. As noted above, public reports contribute to making issues known to all interested stakeholders, including relatives of detainees and the wider public, and to enhancing the accountability of the authorities an dthe NPM’s legitimacy and visibility.  

In its NPM assessment tool, the SPT mentions that “Visit reports, including recommendations, should, in principle, be published. Exceptions may exist where the national preventive mechanism considers it inappropriate to do so or where there is a legal impediment.”  

When publishing their visit reports, the NPM should disseminate the report as widely as possible. This may include uploading visit reports to their websites and disseminating them through their social media channels.  

Publication of reports can be a strategic decision for NPMs. As there is no general applicable rule, NPMs can strategically assess when and how to publish their reports. It may depend on the goals the NPM would like to achieve.  

Visit report are the basis for dialogue towards desired change and it is essential that they are addressed to the right recipients: the authorities that can take measures and implement recommendations. Usually, it is good practice that both the head of the visited institution and the relevant line ministry receive the report simultaneously.  

The NPM should also ensure that any other stakeholders responsible for, or with decision making power on the implementation of recommendations receive the relevant reports, including members of parliament and the judiciary. 

Some NPMs are mandated by their founding legislation to send their visiting reports to a few authorities explicitly indicated in the law. 

In addition, some NPMs follow-up with a presentation of the visit report, findings and recommendations to the head, staff and detained persons in the place visited, in order to ensure understanding, buy-in and implementation of the recommendations. Some NPMs also sent the visited place several copies of the report, for internal dissemination, including to persons deprived of their liberty. 

The length of a visit report usually depends on the type and size of place visited, the length of the visit, the number and complexity of issues identified and the objective of the visit (whether it is an in-depth visit, a follow up visit, an ad hoc visit or a reactive visit). In general, a balance should be found between providing exhaustive information about the visited place and having a readable and understandable visit report where priority issues and NPM recommendations are easy to find and understand.  

The NPM visit report on the first visit to a place is usually more detailed, providing a baseline assessment of the visited place. The following reports are usually more concise and refer to earlier reports when discussing basic information on the facility. Follow up reports, for example, may only address new or complementary issues, highlight key issues and recommendations raised in the first report yet not addressed by authorities and acknowledge recommendations implemented by authorities since the previous visit.  

Having a reader-friendly report usually means not going beyond a few dozen pages, although this again may vary depending on the report’s content (including the use of pictures and visuals) and the objective of the visit.  

Practice from NPMs has shown that very extensive reports may not be the most effective way to reach out to authorities. Often authorities or other interested parties may skip the descriptive section of the report and focus only on the recommendations. Therefore, an option for public versions of visit reports could be to include a short executive summary with a concise analysis of the most urgent issues identified by the NPM, a summary of the main findings and the recommendations issued to the different targeted authorities. 

Some NPMs have internal rules, such that they send their reports for internal review and edits by staff who have not taken part in the visit, including, for example, by legal advisers, data and statistics analysts, and researchers. 

Finally, a good practice implemented by some NPMs is to send their final draft visit report to the head of the visited places for factual checks and reviews. This avoids factual mistakes and inaccuracies while at the same time allowing the authorities to have a first look at the content. The visit report is finalized after this factual check by authorities, with the final decision about what to include always being taken by the NPM. 

A visit report is a written document in which NPMs record their findings and analysis following a monitoring visit to a place of deprivation of liberty.  

In general, NPM visit reports include the main findings observed by the NPM during the visit, from their first-hand observations, interviews carried out with persons deprived of liberty and staff, and consultation of registers and other documents. Visit reports also usually include systemic analysis of the risks of torture and other ill-treatment in the visited place and recommendations to detaining and other relevant authorities. 

Visit reports complement other types of reports NPMs may publish, including annual reports and thematic reports.