3.2 Handling complaints In this toolkit, complaints are defined as requests to the NPM relating to treatment, conditions or other situations in detention. These requests are made mainly by persons deprived of their liberty, but they may also come from someone acting on their behalf, such as family members or lawyers, or from other individuals such as staff members. In the presence of complaints, it is important for the NPM to first analyse whether it is the best position to respond and, if so, what type of action it may take. This is particularly relevant for NPMs that are not part of broader institutions with a mandate to handle individual complaints, which often feel pressured to handle complaints Therefore, it is very important to establish criteria to receive and classify the complaints, and decide on the actions to take. What challenges do complaints raise for the NPM’s preventive mandate? NPMs face challenges in handling complaints due to their preventive mandate, which focuses on monitoring and preventing abuses rather than investigating individual cases; this can strain resources, create unrealistic expectations, and require clear guidelines. NPMs, especially those within larger institutions with separate complaint departments, must balance responding to complaints with maintaining their core preventive role and managing expectations effectively. In deciding how to handle complaints, it is important for NPMs to consider some of the related challenges , which may also differ depending on the type of NPM. Demanding task: Experience shows that handling complaints is very demanding in terms of human and financial resources and can easily divert the NPM from its core mandate. The risk is that NPMs only respond to urgent requests and leave aside the preventive actions that should be at the heart of their work. Expectations: The more NPMs are known, the more they receive information and complaints, thus feeling pressured to handle them in order to maintain their credibility. Information is key for the NPMs’ work, so they should be able to receive information from a variety of sources. Ombuds Institutions and National Human Rights Institutions: When NPMs are part of broader institutions with a mandate to handle individual complaints, it may be easier to create an internal separation of functions and, at the same time, ensure regular exchange of information and synergies. Most of the existing Ombuds Institutions and National Human Rights Institutions designated as NPMs have a complaint or investigation department, which is a distinct structure from the NPM, with separate personnel and record keeping system. In practice, NPMs that are part of larger institutions can refer the complaints received to the specific department within the institution that is competent for investigating them and doing the specific and individual follow-up. The complaint or investigation department, for its part, can share the complaints related to places of detention to the NPM. How could NPMs handle expectations regarding complaints? NPMs must clearly communicate their preventive mandate to avoid creating false expectations about their role, using methods such as interviews, meetings with authorities, their website, annual reports, and informational materials. During interviews with detainees, NPMs should explicitly explain their mandate at the outset to prevent misunderstandings about individual case resolutions and foster trust. At the end of each interview, NPMs should ensure persons deprived of liberty feel they have contributed to improving overall detention conditions. 18 NPM Toolkit for Asia Pacific NPM-NHRIs