2. Thematic visits: The objective of thematic visits is to look at specific issues only, often across a series of similar facilities, but not necessarily. For example, NPMs could look into how detainees are notified about their rights in police custody, the use of isolation and restraints in psychiatric institutions or how solitary confinement is applied across different types of detention settings. Specific themes are often chosen following recurring allegations over certain issues, whether identified by the NPM itself or by others, such as NGOs or the media. Thematic visits are often followed by thematic reports that highlight key issues of concern to a broader audience. They constitute a good opportunity for addressing the underlying systemic causes. 3. Follow-up visits: The most reliable way of ascertaining whether the NPMs’ recommendations have been implemented is to conduct follow-up visits. Follow-up visits are therefore based on previous reports and recommendations. They are usually shorter than in-depth visits, although NPMs may conduct a second phase of in-depth that would include a follow-up of their recommendations previously made. It is essential that NPMs have an efficient internal system to easily track reports and therefore adequately follow-up on their recommendations. Follow-up visits can also refer to visits aimed at following up recommendations made by other bodies, in particular the SPT. 4. Ad hoc visits: They refer to visits which are not planned in the programme of visits. They can take place following a major event (such as fire or a strike) or can be required because the NPM has gathered information about possible patterns of abuse in a specific facility or in a series of facilities. Ad hoc visits therefore aim at further investigating issues of particular concern. Programmes of visits need to include some degree of flexibility and leave room for unplanned visits, which are important and feed into the preventive work. 5. Reactive visits: They refer to visits reacting to specific allegations. They usually take place following a complaint, received either from a detainee, a relative or an NGO. They are not part of the established programme of visits. Although reactive visits may be required, both for the credibility of the NPM and by the urgency of the situation, they should remain exceptional and not divert the NPM from its preventive mandate. Where and when should the NPM’s first visit be conducted? There is no standard approach for an NPM’s first visit; however, initial visits should be preceded by understanding the legal framework, mapping facilities, and potentially engaging with authorities to ensure a smooth process. How many visits should be conducted every year? There is no straightforward answer to this question. The objective of the OPCAT, spelled out in its first article is to “establish a system of regular visits […] to places where people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” There is therefore a requirement of regularity stemming from the OPCAT. However, given the very broad range of places of deprivation of liberty falling under the mandate of the NPMs, it is impossible that all places are frequently monitored. Regularity should therefore be understood broadly, in the sense that places of detention have to remain under regular scrutiny over a long period of time. NPM practices vary hugely: some of them conduct less than 10 visits every year, while others conduct several hundreds. However, these figures must be mirrored with the structure, resources available and specific context of each NPM (including the population, size and geography of the country), which also vary enormously from one country to another. Some NPMs do manage to couple quality with quantity, but this is not within the reach of all monitoring bodies, particularly small institutions with limited resources. NPM Toolkit for Asia Pacific NPM-NHRIs 15