What are the synergies between complaints and the NPM’s preventive mandate? Complaints received by NPMs are valuable for identifying systemic issues and shaping their preventive strategies, as they help pinpoint priority areas for legislative reforms, guide the preparation and focus of visits, and determine the need for ad hoc or reactive visits. Complaints should be systematically recorded and analysed to detect patterns, but they should not be the sole criterion for prioritising actions, as a lack of complaints does not necessarily indicate a lack of problems. Complaints can also serve as evidence in reports and meetings with authorities and highlight issues with the implementation of previous recommendations. What internal procedures should NPMs put in place to receive and handle complaints? NPMs should develop clear procedures for receiving and handling complaints, ideally in coordination with other departments within larger institutions. These guidelines should address the internal organisation of complaint management, including whether to create a dedicated unit or focal point, and outline processes for receiving, acknowledging, analysing, and classifying complaints. Recording all relevant details, such as the type of complaint, concerned individuals, and actions taken, is crucial for identifying patterns and integrating complaints into the NPM’s preventive work. Confidentiality and protection of data are paramount, with personal information not published without consent except in exceptional cases where sharing is necessary to prevent harm or address serious violations. NPMs should also implement measures to prevent reprisals against complainants, such as interviewing a broad range of detainees and conducting follow-up visits to ensure safety. Additionally, protecting sensitive information through secure storage and considering direct communication with detention management about general issues can further safeguard those involved. Case Study Country Y has seen a significant influx of migrants, leading to the establishment of several migrant detention centers. Media reports highlight inhumane conditions and ill-treatment in these centers. One notable case involved a family from Country Z, detained for over six months under deplorable conditions. The detained family faced overcrowding, poor sanitation, and lack of access to basic healthcare. Additionally, they experienced verbal abuse and threats from the detention staff. The children in the family were particularly affected, showing signs of psychological trauma. The staff in the center were largely untrained in handling vulnerable populations, and there was a lack of clear guidelines on detainee treatment. Despite these media reports, public awareness about the conditions in migrant detention centers is minimal, leading to little external pressure for reform. There is also a general lack of understanding among the public about the rights of migrants. Role of NHRI Departments in Follow-Up Consider the following questions in this case study: • What is the role for the NPM in relation to this case? • Which other NHRI departments should be involved in follow up and how? • What kinds of information should be shared among NHRI departments to enable effective follow up? • Have you come across similar issues in your country? How did you address them? NPM Toolkit for Asia Pacific NPM-NHRIs 19