What should be the content of a good visit report? Although visit reports may greatly differ from one NPM (and one context) to another, here are a few key recommendations for visit reports: • Key information about the visiting process: The report should include information about the visiting team members and composition, the visit date/s and the visit’s background (first visit, follow-up visit, etc), as well as any specific focuses of the visit if relevant. • Key information about the visited place: The report should include basic information about the visited place of detention, including its name, type, location, size, occupancy rate. • Observations/findings about the conditions and treatment of persons deprived of liberty in the visited place: The report should focus on substantive issues related to the conditions and treatment in the visited place, in line with the NPM’s OPCAT mandate. Some NPMs have a practice of extensively quoting the relevant domestic and international standards to substantiate their assessment, which can be good practice in most contexts but should not make up the majority of the report, which should above all be practical and practice-oriented. Particular attention should be paid to the triangulation of the information, i.e. to making sure that all information mentioned has been cross-checked using different sources (i.e. interviews with persons deprived of liberty and authorities, registers and other relevant documents, direct observation), to ensure its reliability. It is essential to preserve the confidentiality of the data collected by the NPM, making sure that any information provided by the NPM in its visit report is not attributable to specific persons met in the visited place of deprivation of liberty (whether detainees or staff members) unless express and informed consent to do so is given to the NPM by concerned persons. • Recommendations: NPMs should formulate, in their visit reports, recommendations for authorities on how to remedy the systemic issues observed. See the section on recommendations for more details. • Use of pictures: Several NPMs choose to substantiate their written findings with pictures taken on the visit. This is a good practice when the objective of publishing the pictures is clear (illustrate material conditions or processes). In addition, the use of pictures should not breach the confidentiality of the NPM’s collected information. To this end, no one should be identifiable from any picture published by the NPM to back its analysis- whether it is to document physical conditions, or injuries having been sustained by interviewees, unless express and informed consent to do so is given to the NPM by concerned persons. • Good practices: It is desirable that NPMs also highlight any good practice they would observe on their visit in the related report. How should NPM visit reports be disseminated? It is essential that NPMs target the right recipients for their visit reports, to be able to foster the desired change. Usually, it is good practice that both the head of the visited institution and the relevant line Ministry are being sent the report simultaneously. The NPM shall also ensure that any other stakeholders with potential impact on the implementation of the recommendations contained in the visit reports (from Members of Parliament to judges, see section working with others) are sent the relevant reports. Some NPMs have an established practice of sending the visited place several copies of the report, for internal dissemination, including to persons deprived of their liberty (usually through the library). NPM Toolkit for Asia Pacific NPM-NHRIs 21