NPM Toolkit

Following a decision about the NPM model, a number of immediate steps may be required. These include drafting and adopting new laws or legislative change, if necessary, in order to ensure that the NPM, whether it is a new specialised institution, multiple body-type, or a NHRI, fulfil the mandate and powers requirements of the OPCAT. Immediate steps should also include granting the adequate funding, both for new institutions and for existing institutions that take on a new NPM mandate. States should also notify the SPT of NPM establishment or designation, via a letter to the SPT Secretariat.

Mapping
Before arriving at a consensus about the most appropriate NPM model, mapping existing oversight and monitoring institutions is essential. At the same time it is also important to map all places where people are deprived of liberty. These two mapping activities may be done by the government but could also be achieved by civil society or existing oversight bodies, such as the national human rights institution (NHRI).

Any mapping of existing oversight institutions should consider a number of factors, including the key criteria referred to above, as well as practical issues, including:

• Legislation or other basis of establishment
• Existing mandate and jurisdiction
• Existing powers, including in relation to both public and private places of deprivation of liberty
• Independence (both real and perceived)
• Existing human, financial and logistical resources
• Relations with the authorities and other relevant actors
• Working methods, and existing practices and experience, including in relation to detention monitoring.
• Immunities and privileges of both elected and hired members and staff

In addition, this process should seek to gather information on the number and type of places of deprivation of liberty in the country, including ‘traditional’ places such as prisons and police stations, as well as psychiatric institutions, migrant detention centers, aged care homes, and others, including those under both private and public control.

Together, this mapping of oversight bodies and places of deprivation of liberty should lead to an understanding of where there are gaps and overlaps in oversight, as well as the different changes (in terms of mandate or powers, for example) that may be needed for different oversight bodies to become OPCAT-compliant NPMs.

Mapping may be a particularly complicated process in federal or decentralised states. Here, the mapping process may wish to consider not just the number and type of places of detention in a given jurisdiction but also their legal framework, who is in charge of relevant policy, and who has day-to-day management responsibility.

Consultations
On the basis of this mapping, the best way to arrive at a consensus about which NPM model is most appropriate is to consult with a broad range of stakeholders in an inclusive and transparent process, involving, for example:

• Members of parliament.
• Technical experts from relevant ministries and departments.
• Civil society organisations, including association of detainees’ relatives, and people with lived experience
• Oversight bodies, including the NHRI and specialised oversight bodies.
• Other institutions or individuals who carry out visits to places of detention (such as inspectorates, judges, and community-based  “lay”  visiting schemes).

It may also be useful to seek the advice at this stage of other NPMs in the same region or in similar contexts and, in some cases, regional, international and non-governmental organisations such as the SPT.

Relevant Government agencies should proactively publicise the process, opportunities for participation (including both online and face to face meetings), and the criteria, methods and reasons for the final decision on the NPM model – ideally chosen through consensus among those engaged in the consultation process.

This process can take place through meetings and workshops, as well as online and through calls for written comment or contribution.

Under the OPCAT, states have considerable flexibility regarding the NPM format that is eventually chosen. There are, however, a number of key requirements set out in Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the OPCAT with which NPMs need to comply.

An NPM’s mandate is to regularly examine the treatment of the persons deprived of their liberty in places of detention (Article 19(a)), make recommendations to the relevant authorities (Article 19(b)), and submit proposals and observations on legislation (Article 19(c)). In order to carry out this mandate, NPMs must be functionally independent (Article 18(1)). This means it is autonomous from state authorities and has its independence guaranteed by law. If an existing institution, such as an NHRI is designated as NPM, changes may need to be made in order to ensure it is independent. For multiple body  NPMs, each of the institutions that make up the NPM need to fulfill this criteria.

NPMs should also have certain powers enshrined in law, including, among others, access to information (Articles 20(a) and (b)), (unannounced) access to places of detention (Article 20(c)), the opportunity to interview people who are detained (Article 20(d)), and the right to choose where they visit and who they interview (Article 20(e).  

In addition, states have an obligation to ensure that NPM members and staff have the required capacities and professional knowledge. Part of this requirement is that they are multidisciplinary and include expertise from a range of fields relevant to deprivation of liberty. In order to achieve this, many NPMs rely on independent experts in addition to their own members and staff. Article 18 of the OPCAT also requires NPMs to strive for both a gender balance, and an adequate representation of ethnic and minority groups in the country.

Article 3 of the OPCAT establishes the obligation for each state party to “set up, designate or maintain” one or several NPMs. To designate an NPM, states need to decide which institution will take on the mandate. This decision is then put into effect through a law or decree.

This is the first of three phases that states need to go through in order to set up an effective NPM. Phase two is NPM establishment, which is achieved when the members or staff are in office and the basic requirements for operation are in place. In the third phase, NPMs then become functional as they begin to conduct preventive visits, make reports and recommendations and enter into dialogue with the authorities.

Article 17 of the OPCAT gives states a deadline of one year from the date of ratification to designate their NPM. Given the complexity of the task, however, many states have taken longer to complete this first phase. In order to remain in compliance with this article of the OPCAT this has meant that some states have begun preparatory work before ratification. Others have invoked Article 24, which gives them an additional three years (for a total of four) to designate their NPM.

Among the most important issues for NHRIs to consider is that of multidisciplinarity. As the OPCAT makes clear, NPM staff should have the diversity of backgrounds, capabilities and knowledge required to understand the places that are being visited, and analyse the associated risks. As noted above, NHRIs tend to be staffed largely by lawyers, while NPM work also requires other types of expertise, including (for example) medical expertise.

It should be noted, however, that, depending on the financial means of the NPM, if this requirement for multidisciplinarity cannot be met exclusively through the hiring of permanent staff, it can be supplemented through contractual arrangements with external experts.

Among NHRIs, NPM recruitment is usually governed by the same procedures as the rest of the institution. This has advantages in that NPMs departments do not have to reinvent the wheel, but it may also present challenges. This might be the case, for example, when the profiles needed by the NPM are not compliant with the rules and regulations of typical contracts. For example, in order to recruit doctors or other experts, flexible or differently remunerated contracts may be necessary but not permitted. It is also important to note that NPM head should be in charge of the recruitment process due to the specific and operational nature of the work.

For the multiple institutions to operate as one NPM the institutions need to be coordinated in some way. The NPM will be stronger, more effective, and more efficient if the bodies work well together.

Ways to enable coordination include regular meetings both at leadership and operational levels, joint training, discussing common issues, sharing experience and best practice, undertaking joint visits, and preparing joint publications. This depends on the NPM and the institutions that comprise it (the number of institutions, their resources, and the places of detention they are responsible for monitoring).

• NPM coordinator. An institution should be identified as the NPM coordinator. If a coordinating body has been designated by the state this is their responsibility.  If an institution has not been designated as the NPM coordinator, the NPM institutions can choose among themselves which institution shall be the coordinating body, either on a long term basis or on rotation over a specific period of time.  A coordinating group of a few NPM institutions may also be chosen. It is best practice for the coordinating body to discuss their role and how it can be implemented with the other NPM institutions. Some NPMs have a job description of the coordinating NPM role.
• Coordination in federal or decentralised states. In federal or decentralised states, where there are several NPM institutions at different levels of government, it is good practice to coordinate both at a local level, and at a national level.
• Thematic groups. Some multiple body NPMs have coordinating groups based on themes, for example a group comprising NPM institutions that monitor places where children may be detained. This group can focus on issues arising for that specific theme or group of people, and provide advice and recommendations. These thematic groups can be a particularly positive feature of multiple body NPMs.

A new specialised institution can take many different forms, although they usually conform to one of two models. Because of the specificities of federal states, new specialized institutions established in such jurisdictions are dealt with in the tool on multiple bodies.

• Single member. Some new specialised institutions are established under the leadership of a single individual (often elected or otherwise appointed by parliament or the executive). This type of new specialized institution will usually also include a professional and multidisciplinary staff, who then conduct visits and carry out the other main tasks of the NPM.
• Collegial. Other new specialized institutions are collegial bodies, under the leadership of a number of members (elected or appointed by parliament or the executive), who usually represent a variety of disciplines and backgrounds. The work of these institutions – including detention visits and making recommendations – is usually carried out by the members themselves, although, depending on their number and availability, they may also be supported in this work by professional staff.
• Implications for staff. Whether single leader or collegial in structure, such institutions usually include a secretariat with responsibility for administration, communications and other related matters.

Beyond the secretariat, the size of the institution and the number of elected members also has an impact on the number of professional staff or experts that will be required. While there is no “one size fits all” rule, it is important that, collectively, the institution fulfils the criteria of multidisciplinary. In addition, coverage and effectiveness must be paramount and the number of staff will need to be adapted to the programme of visits – an institution that cannot conduct sufficient preventive visits because of the unavailability of part-time members, for example, is unlikely to be successful in the fulfilment of its mandate. See the tool on profile and skills for more details.

National human rights institutions (NHRIs) are independent bodies, established by the state for the promotion and protection of human rights. NHRIs are  accredited by the Global Alliance of NHRIs on the basis of their compliance with the Paris Principles Relating to the Status of National Institutions, adopted in 1991. These principles set some important minimum criteria for such institutions, including that they have a sound legal basis and are independent from those institutions they are tasked to oversee. Article 18 of the OPCAT states that “due consideration” should be given to them when establishing NPMs.

While OPCAT does not prescribe a specific model, around the world, the majority of NPMs are NHRIs. Other NPMs are either: new specialised institutions or multiple body NPMs.

Most NHRIs that have been designated as NPMs were existing bodies that were granted additional powers and responsibility to perform the NPM mandate. In some countries, NHRIs have been designated as part of multiple body NPMs. In a small number of cases, they were created at the same time as they received their NPM designation.

This tool addresses different types of NHRIs, because, while there are important differences between them (see question 2 below), the opportunities and challenges they face when designated as NPMs are broadly similar. Many of the points made in this tool also apply to the small number of ombuds institutions as NPMs that are not NHRIs, including those with narrower mandates relating, for example, to specific rights, groups, or geographical areas.

Those considering the designation of an NHRI as NPM should not view it as necessarily cheaper than other NPM models. Regardless of the strategy and internal structure that is ultimately decided upon, any NHRI taking on an NPM mandate will require additional human and financial resources. This is also made clear in Article 39 of the 2008 Nairobi Declaration on NHRIs which states that NHRIs should only consider designation as NPMs “if the necessary powers and resources are made available to them.” It is also a clear state obligation under article 18 of the OPCAT to grant the NPM the “necessary resources” for it to be able to carry out its work.

Among the main budget and resource challenges faced by NPMs is the need for dedicated NPM staff. Additional resources are also usually needed for external experts, for example, medical doctors and psychologists, who may be recruited to ensure that NPMs fulfil the criteria of multidisciplinarity. Depending on the model, this might include fees or per diems, and travel costs. Beyond additional human resources, funding will also be required for travel and accommodation for the NPM, as well as to cover, inter alia, the production and publication (and possibly translation) of NPM reports. Funding for training, communication and participation in international exchanges and other fora may also be required.

A second challenge relates to the sheer scope of the mandate, which includes regular monitoring of all places where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty – representing an enormous diversity of places, often across a large geographical area. All NPMs, including NHRIs must find the right balance between quantity and quality of visits, balancing the need to be present in the field and in places of deprivation of liberty, while also allocating sufficient time and resources to analysis and follow-up.  

In addition, the specific nature of the preventive approach poses a significant resource challenge for institutions that have traditionally been more reactive in their work. This is a budget issue in that, regardless of whether an NPM unit has a complaints handling role, it will need sufficient resources so that this role does not overwhelm its capacity to do preventive work.

To ensure financial autonomy and sustainability, good practice is to allocate a set percentage of the total institutional budget to the NPM in the legislation designating the NHRI as NPM, to include it in relevant legislative amendments, or in the internal rules and regulations of the office, again something that is reviewed by the GANHRI SCA. 

Article 18(3) requires NPMs to be given adequate funding. While an existing institution may already be responsible in some way for monitoring a certain place or types of places of detention the designation of that institution as a NPM should not be treated as continuing business as usual. Being part of the NPM is a fundamentally different role. This means a larger budget will be needed to ensure fulfillment of the new role. A new institution will also need to be given adequate funding.

The multiple bodies of a NPM may be funded in different ways. Thought needs to be given to ensuring adequate funding for all the institutions through various funding mechanisms as well as to adequate funding for the NPM as a whole. This is a particular challenge faced by multiple body NPMs. Some institutions may receive more funding than others for their OPCAT role leading to a discrepancy between the ability of institutions to carry out their NPM mandate. Funding must be sufficient to allow each institution to monitor the places of detention within its mandate, and to allow the coordination body to carry out its role.

While institutions may be funded separately, funding for the NPM as a whole needs to be considered.  Multiple body NPMs undertake joint work, for example producing joint reports on thematic issues, undertaking joint visits, and attending joint training. Funding for joint work may be through each separate institution of the NPM, through funding for the NPM as a whole, or through funding for the coordinating body.

New specialised institutions are NPMs that have been established with the sole aim of fulfilling a state’s obligations under the OPCAT. In contrast with most other NPMs, new specialised institutions are not part of other oversight or monitoring bodies and do not have other major roles or powers beyond those set out in the OPCAT. 

In common with other independent oversight bodies, such as national human rights institutions, new specialised institutions often have one or more members who are elected or appointed by the legislative or executive branch of government for a fixed term or terms (see question 2 below).

In accordance with Article 18 of the OPCAT, which includes a reference to the Paris Principles on the Status of Independent Institutions, new specialised institutions are institutionally, operationally, and personally independent of those institutions they are mandated to oversee.

In common with other independent oversight bodies, however, new speclialised institutions are also accountable to the public, usually through parliament. The founding legislation for such institutions should thus include provisions on issues such as when and how members can be removed from office, including in cases of serious misconduct or wrongdoing.

A new institution has the opportunity to build their identity and their reputation. A new institution should discuss how it wants to be seen by those outside of the new institution.

Its preventive mandate gives NPMs a unique role, including through focusing on risk factors and root causes and engaging in dialogue with the authorities to resolve them. Communicating this mandate and how it is different from that of other institutions is important for new institutions.

The specific nature of the institution’s mandate and the values that underpin its work should be reflected in its initial interactions with civil society, the authorities, and the media.

For this reason it is important that new institutions take decisions about who can speak to the media and other partners and what key messages they should transmit. The results of this process can later be codified in a more formal communications strategy.

In discussing NPM models there is sometimes confusion around terms like independence and autonomy. For the purposes of this toolkit, independence means being independent of those institutions you are tasked to oversee – for example the detaining authorities and related ministries. NHRIs, particularly those that comply with the Paris Principles, are usually independent. Autonomy, on the other hand, refers to the ability of different departments within an institution to make decisions and carry out their work in an efficient and effective manner, free from undue interference. As noted above, for NHRIs that have been designated as NPMs, this usually means creating a specific department, headed by a senior figure, to conduct NPM work, free from undue intervention in visits, planning, reports and recommendations.

Whatever the model chosen, however, an NPM unit or department will nevertheless need to work closely with other departments in order to be effective (see section 3 above).

NHRIs will also need to identify and develop clear procedures in relation to who will be in charge of NPM work and the different layers of hierarchy involved – this includes deciding who has the final say on key issues, such as what is in reports and recommendations. In some institutions, one member or deputy ombudsman is chosen as head of NPM. In others, a member or deputy may be in charge of several departments, including, for example, the NPM and the department responsible for complaints and investigations – an approach that may lead to useful synergies between departments with related mandates. In a small number of cases the NPM law itself mandates the creation of a specific department and defines the NPM hierarchy and how it is selected.

Once the hierarchy is established, it may be useful for the leadership of the institution as a whole to regularly participate in visits to places of deprivation of liberty, as well as in pre and post visit briefings and dialogue with the authorities. This is important for ensuring that institutional leadership fully understands the work of the NPM, as well as giving the NPM additional institutional weight, including during dialogue with the authorities.

• Existing institutions with relevant expertise and powers. Within a country an institution or institutions may already exist prior to ratification of OPCAT and be responsible for monitoring places of detention. For example, an independent prison inspectorate or a health commission.  Instead of creating a new institution or choosing one institution as the NPM, several existing institutions can be designated as part of a multiple body NPM that takes advantages of this existing expertise. As with ombuds institutions and national human rights commissions, changes will almost always have to be made to the structure, mandate, and/or powers of these institutions in order to comply with OPCAT. It is also very likely that additional resources will be needed. The NPM may comprise only existing institutions, or may be a mixture of existing institutions and new specialised institutions. The number of institutions and the overall composition of the NPM may also change over time.  
• Federal or decentralised states. In federal or decentralised states, individual jurisdictions may be partly or entirely responsible for certain areas of government. Responsibility for places of detention may be with state or local authorities, the central government or both. For example, a central government may be responsible for immigration detention while local authorities may be responsible for prisons and juvenile detention. Multiple body NPMs, depending on the type, may allow for more effective oversight of places at these different levels. Some OPCAT states have designated so called local preventive mechanisms (LPM) in different states and territories. In such places, the NPM system includes institutions across the states or territories, covering the whole country, as well as (in some cases) at the federal or national level. A significant challenge for this type of NPM is to ensure it maintains coherence and harmony across the states or territories.
• The multiple NPMs in federal or decentralised states may be existing institutions, new specialised bodies, or a combination. The number of institutions and the overall composition of the NPM may change over time.  
• Geographical factors. While a country may not be made up of federal or decentralised states there may still be geographical reasons that a multiple body NPM makes sense. For example, different regions may experience particular detention issues or the size of the country may mean area based bodies are more practical and in closer proximity to the places they monitor. In such cases, the NPM may comprise institutions across the different regions, which together cover the whole of the country.  A NPM such as this will need to ensure it maintains coherence and harmony in its approach and working methods. Such NPMs may include existing institutions, new specialised bodies, or a combination. The number of institutions and the overall composition of the NPM may change over time. 

Annual report. Article 23 of the OPCAT requires states parties to “publish and disseminate the annual reports of the national preventive mechanisms”. Although this obligation is formulated as an obligation of the state, it is a clear requirement for NPMs to produce such report every year.

Multiple body NPMs should produce one consolidated annual report. This is often in addition to individual annual reports by each body covering their activities beyond their OPCAT mandate. The report reflects key recommendations and issues across the NPM.

Thematic reports. It is likely there will be common issues across the NPM institutions. Some NPMs have chosen to undertake thematic work together and publish reports on joint thematic issues. This is a positive feature of multiple body NPMs. This may include all or only some of the institutions. NPMs may do this on a regular basis or may do so as an issue arises. The institutions can leverage coverage of places of detention, and expertise when working together on a thematic issue, and give visibility to a certain issue that may exist across different detention settings or across different areas of the country.

The term institutional culture describes the ideas, customs, and social behaviours of a particular organisational group. A good institutional culture does not mean everyone agrees all the time, instead, it means that interactions are respectful and are carried out in pursuit of a shared objective. Institutional culture and institutional effectiveness are closely linked.

For new institutions, building a team, defining an institutional culture and coming up with clear decision-making processes are crucial to their success. This is particularly so for collegial bodies, with a number of members who may have different views and visions about what they would like the institution to be and how they would like it to work.

There is no easy or fast way to establish a good institutional culture, although beginning with an open discussion around the institution’s vision and mission is a good place to start. On this basis a new specialised institution may then define its core values and principles as a representation of what it would like its culture to be. Later steps might include basing hiring, performance assessment and promotion criteria on adherence to these core values and principles.

A large part of creating a good institutional culture is through leadership. Leaders set the tone for what is acceptable and desirable in an institution. Leaders should model the values they want to see in the institution. They should provide support, guidance, and feedback and be open to discussing and learning from staff. In collegial bodies, where a number of members hold leadership positions, selecting a “president” or other institutional leader is thus crucial, as are open and frank discussions among members about the kind of institutional culture they would like to foster. Because processes for selecting a leader among members may not be set out in the institution’s founding legislation, members should consider developing a process for this as a priority.

For new institutions, the task is complicated by the fact that they are immediately confronted with a huge list of tasks and competing priorities. “Soft” topics like institutional culture and decision-making processes might seem like lower priorities than finding offices and conducting first visits. Not considering them a priority, however, would be a mistake – they provide the foundations on which so much else is built.

Most NHRIs designated as NPM have chosen to create a dedicated NPM unit or department, headed by a senior figure, and with responsibility solely for prevention – an approach recommended by the SPT Guidelines. This means that individual complaints and investigations are handled by a separate department, and the NPM can focus its full attention on preventive work. If this approach is chosen, the NPM department should also be integrated into the broader institution, including with a system of regular interaction and cooperation with other departments. Such cooperation may cover: complaints and how they are collected, transferred and investigated; visits to places of detention; and thematic issues relevant to the whole institution. This is important to ensure the protection of detainees, and to make sure that both the NPM and other units with overlapping mandates can mutually benefit from shared information, knowledge and expertise. Although, due to NPM’s broad powers of access to sensitive information there may be limits to the kinds of information that the NPM unit shares with other departments. Cooperation on issues such as training and education, communication, law reform and other matters may also be beneficial.  

Another, less common, approach is to create or designate one dedicated department, again headed by a senior figure, with responsibility for all issues relating to deprivation of liberty. This means that one single department conducts preventive visits as the NPM, as well as handling and investigating individual complaints. The advantages of this approach are in potentially increased information sharing and avoidance of overlap. The challenges, however, are that the reactive work of complaints handling dominates the department, leading to insufficient emphasis being placed on prevention. This is because complaints are often both urgent and abundant.

While one department of an NHRI is usually responsible for NPM work it is important to underline that designation means that the institution as a whole “is” the NPM and not only one department (although some exceptions do exist). While NPM departments should be given operational autonomy, this does not mean that NPM departments should be closed off or otherwise isolated from the institution as a whole. This is for many of the reasons of synergy and effectiveness discussed above. The institution’s internal rules and organisation chart should thus be designed with these objectives in mind.

• Split by type of place and/or theme. A multiple body NPM may be comprised of institutions split by type of place and/or theme. Each institution may be responsible for monitoring a specific type of place of detention. For example, one institution may be responsible for prisons while another is responsible for psychiatric institutions. Each institution may be responsible for a certain theme, for example, one institution may be responsible for places of detention where children are held while another institution may be responsible for healthcare in detention. In designating this kind of NPM, it is important to ensure that all potential types of places of detention are being monitored by at least one institution.
• Federal or decentralised. In federal or decentralised states, a multiple body NPM may include one or several institutions in each jurisdiction. It might also include institutions with mandates and powers that cut across a number of jurisdictions. Together, the NPM system should cover all jurisdictions. If there are places of detention under the responsibility of national authorities, it is essential that an institution is responsible for monitoring these places of detention as well.
• Geographical. A multiple body NPM may be comprised of institutions based in different regions or areas. They are responsible for monitoring places of detention within a certain area of the country. Together all the NPM institutions cover the whole country.  In designating an NPM like this it is essential that all areas of the country are covered, including those on islands or other non-contiguous territories.
• Combination of thematic and federal or geographical. A multiple body NPM may be a mixture of bodies split by type of place and/or theme and/or by geography. Some NPMs are made up of institutions that monitor a certain type of place or theme within one area of the country. The NPM together monitors all types of places of detention in all areas of the country.

The NPM is all the institutions together. Each separate institution is a part of the NPM. The NPM as a whole should have coherence in its communications, goals, strategies, and approaches. All new multiple body NPMs should discuss their goals and strategies as NPM, and their internal organisation and work practices. This discussion could include institutional practices, the management of knowledge and information, decision-making processes, engagement with civil society, engagement with authorities, communications strategies, and responding to common issues. Discussions such as these can continue for ongoing evaluation and development, and to review the ways in which the NPM as a whole is working.
While a NPM institution may have a wider mandate the institution must also identify itself as a NPM. It is critical for an existing body to understand that becoming a NPM is not business as usual and to understand the preventive mandate of OPCAT. Existing mandates and thematic work may strengthen a future NPM and, vice versa, NPM work may strengthen existing mandates.  Any business planning, expectations, or strategies could include discussion on the new NPM role.

The first steps for new specialised institutions should happen in parallel and help the institution advance towards achieving its overall vision. While a fully realised strategy may need to wait until some of the other steps have been completed, a new institution should nevertheless be thinking strategically from the beginning, including about what it wants to achieve and how the different building blocks below can contribute to achieving this objective.

• Staff. In order to conduct their work, NPM teams need to be multidisciplinary in their profiles and skills (see Article 20 of the SPT Guidelines). New specialised institutions can fulfil this criteria across their membership and staff, depending on the model chosen. The NPM’s own expertise can also be supplemented by the use of experts. In addition, and again depending on the size of the institution, staff are also likely to be needed for the NPM secretariat.
• Training. Alongside the recruitment of staff, training should be viewed both in terms of short and longer-term needs. Ensuring everyone understands the basics of the OPCAT and the preventive mandate is an obvious first priority. The basics of how to conduct visits, how to write reports and recommendations and how to plan operationally and strategically are then logical next steps. Some training sessions should involve all staff and members of a NPM to foster an inclusive work environment, as well as to ensure that everyone has a shared basic understanding. Some NPMs have chosen to develop a manual or manuals on NPM roles. Others provide in-house training where staff themselves develop and deliver training based on their areas of expertise to other staff.  New institutions may also choose to reach out to other bodies such as the SPT or APT or other NPMs to learn from their expertise.
• Budget. Article 18(3) requires NPMs to be given adequate funding. In establishing a new specialised institution the state needs to allocate a sufficient budget for basic costs (including offices and transport), staff, and operations. In common with other independent oversight bodies, it is good practice for new specialised institutions themselves to present a budget to parliament for consideration, based on their own identified priorities. Once allocated, NPMs should be given the operational autonomy to decide how their funds are spent. Financial accountability should be through regular public financial reporting and an annual independent audit.
• Office and equipment. A NPM will need basic infrastructure such as offices, computers, and other office supplies. NPM offices should not be located in government buildings. However, they should be centrally located, close to public transport, and easily accessible, including to persons with disabilities. A NPM will need to travel to places of detention. Transport, or other arrangements should be discussed – particularly as this may have significant budgetary implications. An office needs assessment may be helpful in understanding IT and other requirements. This should consider both immediate needs and longer-term growth of the NPM. At a minimum, NPMs will need basic office equipment such as desks and chairs, laptop computers with basic software, access to the internet through a secure connection, a system for electronic and paper storage of documents, including secure storage for confidential information, and a website and email domain that are separate from government. NPMs may also need equipment for monitoring such as notebooks and cameras.
• Internal organisation. In its early stages, new specialized institutions will need to develop internal rules and procedures covering aspects such as: hierarchy and decision-making, working with experts, planning and visits, reports and recommendations, and other aspects of their work.
• Activities. When to conduct the first visit is an important question. Some NPMs may wish to conduct a pilot visit very quickly, while others may wish to wait until other elements are in place.

Change of mindset.

• One of the biggest challenges for NHRIs designated as NPMs is the change of mindset required to begin working in a preventive way. Many existing institutions have long histories and experience of complaints handling and investigations. Many also conduct detention inspections based on compliance with established laws and standards. In contrast, the work of an NPM is forward-looking, multidisciplinary, aimed at reducing risks and root causes of torture and ill-treatment, and at protecting the dignity of those deprived of their liberty, even in the absence of complaints. The approach of NPMs is also based on ongoing, constructive engagement and dialogue with the authorities and on changing public mindsets. In particular, NPM work often focuses on bridging the gap between what exists in law and standards, and the practices that are found in detention – work which requires an in-depth understanding of what is happening in detention, built on long and in-depth visits to places of deprivation of liberty.

Legislation and powers.

• NHRIs – particularly those that fully comply with the Paris Principles – have a strong legal basis, often grounded in the constitution. In many cases, this founding legislation contains some of what is required by the OPCAT – the first international treaty to proscribe specific powers and mandate to national institution. This often includes existing powers to visit places of detention. Nevertheless, the founding legislation of NHRIs often falls short of compliance with all OPCAT requirements. In such cases, there are several options: one is to pass new or additional legislation designating the NHRI as the NPM. Another option is to revisit the institution’s founding legislation entirely – even if only small changes are ultimately required – and include the required amendments. This can be an opportunity for discussions about the institution as a whole, as well as how best to integrate the NPM mandate. This process may involve an institutional review, conducted by the NHRI, supplemented by both public and parliamentary debates. In the real world, of course, such a review may be a difficult and time-consuming task and one that can also involve dangers for the institution if spoilers seek to use the opportunity to undermine the whole institution.
• Regardless of the approach chosen, the specific functions and powers of the NPM should be stated explicitly in law , including in order to sustain the NPM’s existence in the long term. This process will also need to be accompanied by discussions on the institutions’ internal rules and processes.

Expertise and staff.

• One of the primary reasons for designating these NHRI as NPMs is that many of them have existing experience, particularly in relation to law reform, and to visiting some types of places of detention, usually prisons. This means that, while NPM work is very different in both approach and scope, some detention environments are nevertheless not unfamiliar to many NHRI. In addition, many of them also have thematic expertise in relation to groups in situations of vulnerability, although not always in detention contexts. Some of them may also have experience in relation to issues such as disability rights, elderly persons, access to justice, health care, migration, and child rights – all areas with relevance to the work of NPMs. Another advantage is that due to their broad human rights mandates, many NHRIs are able to link the specialised NPM mandate with its day to day work under its general, broad human rights mandate.
• Despite the Paris Principles requirement of pluralism, what most NHRIs lack, however, is the multidisciplinary expertise that is required for preventive work as an NPM, given that the staff of such institutions are almost always lawyers. Thus, while existing staff play a key role, they will usually need to be joined by new colleagues from a broad range of backgrounds and specialisations who can be dedicated fully to the NPM mandate. This can be challenging given that public sector hiring rules, may restrict the ability of such institutions to hire the exact people they need, including as external experts, from a range of disciplines.

Institutional capacity.

• Most NHRIs have a number of existing departments that may be complementary to the work of the NPM, allowing the institution as a whole to maximise its impact and use of resources. For example, many such institutions have specialised staff working on parliamentary relations and legislative reform. This can be useful, given the role of NPMs in making recommendations on new legislation or on the reform of existing laws – both of which are mandated under article 19 of the OPCAT.
• There may also be useful synergies to be found with departments working on complaints, with those working on specific groups in situations of vulnerability, and those working on education and training. Existing administrative departments (responsible for finance and travel, for example) may also be extremely useful when taking on an NPM mandate.
• In addition, many have a designated communications and advocacy unit. Communication is key to explaining a new NPM mandate; the specificity of the preventive approach; to making the work of the NPM visible; and to assist in ensuring that monitoring activities lead to real change in detention. These tasks can be greatly facilitated by the existing communications expertise of NHRIs, particularly when existing communications staff are given the resources and training necessary to understand the specificities of the preventive mandate of NPMs.  
• Many NHRIs have regional offices, which may be helpful to NPMs in ensuring adequate geographical coverage for their work, particularly in large or geographically fragmented countries where places of deprivation of liberty may exist far from major cities. In particular, regional offices are likely to be rich sources of context-specific information for the NPM. However, involving such offices in detention visits and other aspects of NPM work requires careful thought and planning in order to maximise the use of the institutions’ resources and to ensure coherence of the NPM’s work, particularly given that, in many institutions, regional offices are overloaded and understaffed. Good practice might involve, for example, designating an NPM focal point within each regional office; involving regional staff in NPM specific training; involving regional offices in discussions on planning, visit preparation and follow-up; and clarifying rules around staff participation and hierarchy.
• Finally, existing infrastructure (such as offices and cars) can potentially be useful when NHRIs take on an NPM mandate, although additional resources will almost always be required and are, in fact, a specific requirement of the GANHRI subcommittee on accreditation (SCA), when it reviews those members institutions that have been designated as NPMs.  
• Many of these internal synergies can usefully be addressed in an institution’s internal rules.

Coherence of the human rights system.

• Human rights monitoring and oversight systems that are overly complicated can be difficult for authorities, detainees, and others to understand. It can also lead to gaps and overlaps in coverage. Centralising detention-related mandates within an NHRI can be helpful in this regard, by creating a “one-stop-shop” for human rights issues within a country.

Legitimacy.

• NHRIs that have an NPM mandate may be able to build on their existing engagement with national stakeholders and counterparts. Existing relationships, reputation, trust and visibility can be an advantage – in cases where they are positive. At the same time, existing institutions will also need to take the time and put in significant effort to properly communicate the specificities of the NPM mandate among relevant stakeholders. In cases where the existing institution is viewed negatively by key stakeholders, this can be a serious handicap to future NPM effectiveness.

Links to the international system.

• Strong links and familiarity with the international human rights system are strengths of many NHRIs, particularly those with GANHRI “A Status” accreditation that allows them to participate in the UN Human Rights Council and treaty body processes.  Existing knowledge of the UN human rights system, feeding national recommendations and priorities into those made internationally, and promoting international recommendations domestically, may enable an NHRI as NPM to further reinforce and improve implementation of recommendations at the national level.
• In addition, the status of NHRIs within international and regional NHRI networks may also offer an additional level of protection against interference or reprisals. These networks also provide an important source of information and exchange of experiences, lessons and good practices among NHRIs, thus helping to strengthen their work domestically
• The accreditation process for institutions that are part of GANHRI can also provide a measure of external accountability for NPMs, ensuring that they meet some key minimum standards for independence.

Multiple body NPMs are, as the name suggests, a model of a NPM that is comprised of several different institutions. In accordance with Article 17 of the OPCAT, each institution is required to comply with OPCAT and should be independent from state authorities and have the necessary mandate and powers.

A small number of countries have designated a multiple body NPM. Some multiple body NPMs comprise only two institutions, while others are much bigger comprising more than twenty institutions. Institutions that are part of multiple body NPMs can include national human rights commissions, ombuds institutions, new specialised institutions, independent inspectorate bodies, specialised commissions, and monitoring boards. The number of institutions and the type of institutions comprising a multiple body NPM is dependent on the country itself (including the population, the size of the country, and what institutions already exist).

The NPM may be comprised of institutions each responsible for a certain type of place of detention and/or thematic area, by institutions in different geographical areas, and/or institutions in different jurisdictions.

NPMs have the right to contact and meet with the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture (Article 20(f)) and many NPMs liaise with international bodies. A multiple body NPM may choose one institution to be the contact point, such as the coordinating body, or each institution may wish to be in contact with the SPT individually.

As with all NPM models there are a number of challenges and opportunities that relate to the establishment of a new specialised institution as NPM.

• Institutions that precisely conform to the requirements of the OPCAT. In many states, the creation of a new specialised institution as NPM follows a process which concludes that existing oversight bodies are not suitable or are unwilling to take on a new NPM mandate. This may be for a variety of reasons, including lack of independence or poor reputation, or the fact that the NPM mandate is not seen as sufficiently compatible with the powers, working methods or priorities of an existing body. In such cases, an opportunity exists to create an institution with a mandate, independence, visiting and advisory powers, and other guarantees, that precisely to match OPCAT requirements. By starting from scratch, such institutions have an opportunity to build multidisciplinary teams, define working methods, and create relationships with the authorities that are wholly oriented towards prevention.
• Risk of duplication. Nevtheless, when creating a new institution there is a clear risk that it will duplicate at least some of the functions of existing bodies – some of which may have detention-related mandates or powers. Care thus needs to be taken to map the existing institutional landscape, and develop good working relationships (possibly including: cooperation mechanisms, information sharing agreements, or other systems) that ensure the most efficient working conditions for the NPM as well as the best possible level of protection for persons deprived of their liberty.
• Starting from scratch. A further challenge for new specialised institutions is the logistical and technical difficulty of starting from scratch. The challenge of establishing basic processes and prerequisites – including just finding office space – can seriously delay an NPM’s ability to start work.

National Human Rights Ccommissions (NHRCs). The key distinguishing feature of NHRCs is that they have a multi-member elected governing body that acts collectively or collegially. These members can work full-time, part time, on a voluntary basis, or a mix of the three. Among NHRCs, there is a wide variation in their number – from three to more than thirty. In some NHRCs, members are appointed with general mandates, while others have specific responsibilities for particular human rights areas set out in the law or regulations. Members of NHRCs are supported by professional staff.

Ombuds institutions. Ombuds institutions, on the other hand, usually have only one elected member, who is full time and supported by a professional staff. The elected head of the institution may sometimes be supported by one or more elected deputies. Ombuds institutions traditionally focused on receiving and investigating complaints related to maladministration, although many now have significantly broader human rights mandates, blurring the distinction with NHRCs.

“Ombudsman plus” institutions. Some ombuds institutions have been designated as NPMs alongside civil society organisations. They are known as “ombuds plus” institutions. In most cases, formal agreements govern cooperation between the ombuds institution and NGOs, covering how they are selected and their role in NPM tasks, including during visits.