What are the synergies between complaints and the NPM’s preventive mandate?

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.