4– Conclusions The research described in this report sought to understand more about how, in light of the difficult political, financial and technical challenges that we have previously identified, NPMs in Greece and Turkey were working to protect the rights of immigration detainees. Despite the limitations described in this report, we found much that was encouraging. Indeed, it is worth stressing that the very fact that we were granted access to facilities alongside the NPMs, in both Turkey and Greece, was a positive sign. We have developed over a short period of time a close working relationship with the NPMs. In March 2019, both NPMs attended a meeting hosted by the Greek Ombudsman in Athens, along with Greek NGOs, a senior CPT official and the Chair of the UN Sub-committee on Prevention of Torture. This event enabled extensive discussion and knowledge exchange. In Turkey, we were impressed by the systematic approach of the Turkish NPM and saw monitoring visits that were conducted with skill and professionalism. However, while evidence was gathered to provide meaningful judgments about the treatment and conditions for the detainees who were seen, the NPM did not visit most of the residential parts of detention centre. There was evidence of substantial psychological distress and little constructive activity in the detention centre. The environment and facilities for children in particular were very poor, resulting in emotional and behavioural problems. In Greece, conditions in both facilities we visited were poor and had been for some time. The NPM is now more frequently visiting centres, although the monitoring visits remain short and evidence-gathering limited. The absence of interpreters and the lack of privacy in conversation with detainees raise serious questions about the ability of the NPM to gather reliable evidence. The senior director based at Petrou Ralli gave little assurance that the concerns the NPM had raised would be acted on. Since our visit, the NPM has expanded its methodology to include detainee surveys and is entering into a new phase in its short life (see Fili and Bosworth 2019). We look forward to extending our knowledge exchange activities with the Greek NPM, and a training event has been planned with the Greek NPM for September 2019. 30 The Turkish and Greek NPMs were welcoming and their openness reflected a commitment to furthering human rights in detention. Both were working in a context of serious resource constraints and challenging political environments. Both were still in the very early stages of their development. Our previous findings suggested that NPMs facing such pressures would benefit from greater engagement with civil society actors and academics, and this view was reinforced during the more recent visits. The next phase of our research will look more closely at the work on NGOs and how they can support efforts to protect migrant rights.