How can NPMs and civil society organisations work together?

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.