In both sites, the NPM coordinator was a skilled and thorough interviewer, the assistant experts were diligent and also spoke privately to many detainees and residents, using interpreters in some cases. They were supported by the HREIT international relations manager who was fluent in Arabic. The team spent much time speaking to detainees confidentially and establishing concerns. This was good practice, which allowed them to hear directly from detainees about their perspectives. These points were then taken back to the director for a response. How conflicting information was then analysed and what conclusions were reached would only be clear in a completed report. It was hard in a single day to obtain the documentation and facts necessary to a rounded assessment. This was slightly mitigated by the practice of writing to the centre director a detailed letter outlining what further information was required. Throughout the day, the assistant experts were taking notes of things that would need to be requested. The monitoring could have been extended to other parts of the camp fairly easily if the competent assistant experts had been given more responsibility. There were useful discussions with staff, but rarely with the security staff. This would have added a useful further dimension. The coordinator was clear that the NPM could not investigate cases that were subject to legal process and on many occasions told detainees clearly about the remit of the NPM. The team used a list of prompts and questions to ensure they covered key areas. The discussion and direct feedback to the directors at the end gave the impression of a transparent and confident NPM approach. For both sites, we did not see the important next steps: report writing, recommendations, publication, institutional action and follow-up. Summary The CPT visited a number of facilities in Turkey in 2015 (CPT 2017b), when the Gaziantep centre was not in existence. The CPT praised the shelter given to refugees from Syria in camps but had mixed findings overall about the detention centres, for example criticising the lack of outdoor exercise, very poor physical conditions in some centres, and inadequate provision for families with children. The CPT praised efforts to improve healthcare and the provision of psychologists, social workers and interpreters, as well as the general absence of allegations of ill-treatment (CPT 2017b: 4). These conclusions found some resonance in the NPM’s findings in Gaziantep removal centre, although the NPM had little trouble in also finding evidence of potential ill-treatment. While the director had told us that there were no complaints about the behaviour of staff and very little violence, in our short visit we were told of an allegation of assault backed up by witnesses and saw an apparent assault. There was no governance that we could ascertain around use of force. Staff could not tell us how many people had been in the isolation room or how much force had been used. The NPM requested more details on these issues. The team did not have enough time to fully inspect the Gaziantep removal centre. While the visited units were wellselected as areas of greatest concern, most of the residential parts of the centre were not monitored. At a final meeting with the deputy HREIT director and a Board member, the research team were invited to feed back our views. We relayed our positive impression of the methods used by the NPM team; and the concerns we had about the immigration detention facility, especially the wholly inadequate conditions for children. We also spoke about concerns about the lack of resourcing of the NPM and the fact that the value of the work was undermined without published reports. 17