At the time of our first visit in 2016, the Human Rights and Equality Institution of Turkey (HREIT), within which the NPM sits, was transitioning from its previous incarnation as the more narrowly focused Human Rights Institution of Turkey, and was not functioning (see Bhui, Bosworth and Fili 2018; OHCHR 2017). Since then, it had established its new structure and was now active in monitoring different forms of custody, including immigration detention. The NPM provided us with the following figures for monitoring visits undertaken since it had resumed activity under the new HREIT: -In 2017, five visits were carried out, all to prisons. -In 2018, 28 visits were carried out. Four had been to temporary refugee camps and four to immigration removal centres[22]. While the HREIT as a whole had about 120 staff covering a wide range of activity, the NPM was comprised of only five staff at the time of our visit: a coordinator, an expert and three assistant experts. The lead monitor and the designated coordinator of the NPM was a judge. The assistant expert role is an entry level position and the first that new NPM/HREIT members undertake. The five members of the NPM combined both monitoring and complaints work; they told us that the latter task was very time-consuming for such a small number of staff, placing significant limitations on what they could achieve[23]. By March 2019, the number of NPM staff had increased to eight, which was still insufficient[24]. The NPM conducted announced and unannounced visits. They shared their main findings with the authorities immediately at the end of a visit. They then wrote to them to request further information and evidence. Establishments were then expected to write to the NPM after visits to say what they had done to implement recommendations. The NPM conducted announced and unannounced visits. They shared their main findings with the authorities immediately at the end of a visit. They then wrote to them to request further information and evidence. Establishments were then expected to write to the NPM after visits to say what they had done to implement recommendations. [22] Merve Sisli (2019) ‘Immigration detention and monitoring in Turkey’, presentation by NPM Expert, 21.3.19, to conference in Athens. [23] The potential difficulties associated with NPM’s holding both preventive inspection and reactive complaints functions have been well documented. See, for example, APT (2006). [24]OpCit. 09