Other groups contributed to the broader work of detention monitoring. Every province had a civil monitoring board (CMB), which was comprised of volunteers[25]. The CMBs sent reports monthly to the NPM, which used them as intelligence. The NPM said they might also ask CMBs to go to places of detention if they had particular concerns emerging, for example, from their complaints work. Since 2017, dedicated ���migration commissions’ made of experts, academics, civil society, officials from health and education institutions and municipality representatives, had also been tasked with regular visits to removal centres[26], although there was no mention of these bodies during our visit. We saw only one NGO - the Turkish Red Crescent (TRC) – present in immigration detention. Since the failed coup of 2016, civil society organisations, some of which had previously contributed to detention monitoring, had been largely excluded from Turkey’s custodial institutions[27]. Despite a lifting of the state of emergency in July 2018, civil society organisations continue to have limited space to work and many human rights activists remain in prison[28]. The NPM’s contact with the TRC and other NGOs was limited to receiving information and allegations, which they used to assist them during their monitoring visits. In addition to low staffing, a key problem at the time of our visit in terms of wider impact and good NPM practice was the fact that no reports had been published since the NPM’s reconstitution in 2017; the HREIT board, which sat above the operational HREIT structure, was responsible for approving reports for publication[29]. HREIT staff we spoke to were concerned about the length of time it was taking for approval to be granted, as they believed that their work should be available to the public. We were told by the NPM that these views had been taken seriously by the HREIT Board. We received an update in June 2019 that 10 reports had now been published[30]. [25] The CMBs appeared in organisation and purpose similar to the independent monitoring boards that operate in the UK. See IMB website at: https://www.imb.org.uk/ [26] Asylum Information Database: Turkey. Available at: https://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/turkey/place-detention. Last accessed 8.5.19. [27] There have been numerous reports of human rights abuses during the state of emergency; see, for example, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (March 2018) Report on the impact of the state of emergency on human rights in Turkey, including an update on the South-East January-December 2017. Last accessed 23.7.19. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/TR/2018-03-19_Second_OHCHR_Turkey_Report.pdf [28] European Commission: ‘Key findings of the 2019 Report on Turkey’, Brussels, 29 May 2019. Last accessed 19.7.19. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_COUNTRY-19-2781_en.htm [29] See Bhui, Bosworth and Fili 2018 for more detail on the structure of the HREIT. [30] Merve Sisli (2019) ‘Immigration detention and monitoring in Turkey’, presentation by NPM Expert, 21.3.19, to conference in Athens. None of these reports are in English and at time of writing (July 2019) we have not translated them. 10