What should NPMs communicate?
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.