of recommendations. Once the final report is shared with the authorities and made public, NPMs engage in a sustained dialogue process to follow-up on their recommendations and ensure their implementation. In practice, it means not only relying on written exchanges such as emails or official correspondence, but also – and most importantly – maintaining face-to-face or online meetings and informal engagements, to establish trust . NPMs have direct engagements with the authorities also beyond their recommendations following visits to places of detention, for example to discuss relevant thematic issues or to advocate for legal and policy changes. NPMs are also regularly consulted on specific issues and provide expert advice to authorities. How does dialogue work in practice? Dialogue can take various forms, including bilateral discussions with individual institutions or interinstitutional roundtables involving multiple authorities. For example, some NPMs convene meetings with police, health ministries, and judicial actors to advance detention safeguards or organise discussions on draft recommendations to secure early buy-in. Regular annual meetings with relevant authorities, such as OPCAT focal points, help review the implementation of recommendations and address any issues. For dialogue to be effective, NPMs must engage with relevant institutions and key actors consistently over time. This often involves designating focal points within institutions for more informal and regular communication. Besides formal written requests for responses on recommendations, NPMs should also hold face-to-face or online meetings and maintain informal exchanges via phone or messaging apps to build trust, address challenges, and facilitate agreements. Depending on the NPM, the heads, members and staff of the institution may have different responsibilities when it comes to dialogue with the authorities. This may depend also on the dialogue format and addresses, for instance whether the dialogue involves high-level authorities or technical staff. While there is no single model applicable to all NPMs, it is important that NPMs clearly define in advance the responsibilities relating to dialogue with the authorities within their team. What are the limits to dialogue? Dialogue should be the guiding principle in all activities conducted by the NPM. However, it may have some limitations. Dialogue requires willingness and inclusion of both parties. Genuine and meaningful engagement is possible only if there is trust and respect between the NPM and the authorities, and if the NPM preserves its independence. It is important that the NPM does not let only authorities dictate the terms on which the dialogue takes place. In some circumstances, NPMs may need to draw a line when it comes to dialogue with the authorities and take a different approach. For example, it may be helpful to also approach the media or mobilise other national or international actors when there is an urgent and serious issue uncovered, or when there is a lack of engagement from authorities over the long term. Even in those cases, it is important for NPMs to try to keep some form of engagement with the authorities, because they are the ones who have the responsibility to bring about change. 40 NPM Toolkit for Asia Pacific NPM-NHRIs