Preventing Torture The Role of National Preventive Mechanisms

PREVENTING TORTURE
The Role of
National Preventive
Mechanisms
A PRACTICAL GUIDE
Professional Training
Series No. 21
PREVENTING TORTURE
The Role of
National Preventive
Mechanisms
A PRACTICAL GUIDE
Professional Training
Series No. 21
New York and Geneva, 2018

© 2018 United Nations
This work is available open access by complying with the Creative Commons license created for inter-
governmental organizations, available at:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/.
Publishers must remove the OHCHR logo from their edition and create a new cover design. Translations must
bear the following disclaimer: “The present work is an unofficial translation for which the publisher accepts full
responsibility.” Publishers should e-mail the file of their edition to publications@un.org.
Photocopies and reproductions of excerpts are allowed with proper credits.
United Nations publication issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
HR/P/PT/21
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression
of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any
country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such
a figure indicates a reference to a United Nations document.
Foreword
The Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture is unique in many ways: it
is the only exclusively preventive international human rights treaty and the first instrument entrusting
national bodies – namely National Preventive Mechanisms (hereinafter mainly referred to as NPMs)
– with a role in the implementation of that international treaty. Owing to their regular visits to places
of detention at national and local levels, day-to-day contact with authorities, and intimate knowledge
of the context, NPMs have a key role to play in preventing torture and complementing the work of
international bodies. To do so, the NPMs must be equipped not only with a strong legislative mandate
but also with the necessary human and financial resources. Fully cognisant that the establishment
of a NPM is not meaningful unless it is enabled to perform its functions effectively, the drafters of
the Optional Protocol explicitly stipulated legal obligations for the States parties concerning the
independence, mandate and budgetary resources of such mechanisms. The unique interplay between
NPMs and the United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture reinforces the potential of both
to spare countless human beings from the horrors of torture and ill-treatment.
Moreover, the Subcommittee is an important complement to the work of the United Nations Committee
against Torture, the Special Rapporteur on Torture, and the Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, which
are the key United Nations mechanisms established to prevent, prohibit and combat this scourge.
This Guide draws on the decade-long expertise of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture in
guiding and advising on NPMs. It summarizes the Subcommittee’s documents and recommendations
in a simple, practical guide to assist States – both States parties to the Optional Protocol, and those
considering becoming a State party – to establish or strengthen their NPMs. It also builds on the
experience of OHCHR staff in the field, many of whom have been and continue to be instrumental in
supporting NPMs with human rights expertise on the ground.
I hope that this Guide will be a useful and practical tool for States, NPMs and other actors for the
purpose of preventing and eliminating torture and ill-treatment in every corner of the Earth.
Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein

High Commissioner for Human Rights
I iii
The obligation to establish National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) set out in the Optional Protocol
to the Convention against Torture (the OPCAT) fundamentally changes how torture and ill-treatment is
to be challenged and addressed.
It had long been recognized that impartial, independent scrutiny of the treatment of those in detention
plays a vital role in achieving this end, and mechanisms for doing so have long existed in various
parts of the world and in a number of States. However, there was no comprehensive system and no
recognized approach to how such mechanisms might best be established and operate. Moreover the
mandates of many of the mechanisms which did exist was often limited and vulnerable to change.
Seen as a global system of prevention, it was partial, fragmented and weak. The OPCAT has
transformed this.
For States parties the system is now comprehensive, cohesive and strong. Clear guidance exists on
the establishment and operation of NPMs, backed by legal obligations and linked to the international
system of NPMs and the UN Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture (the SPT), which is the
international preventive mechanism guiding and guarding the system as a whole. This Guide sets out
and explains the essential elements of this system and the work of NPMs, and is itself an important
contribution to the fight against torture.
Sir Malcolm Evans

Chair of the Subcommittee on
Prevention of Torture
iv I PREVENTING TORTURE: THE ROLE OF NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS – A PRACTICAL GUIDE

Contents
FOREWORD ...................................................................................................................... iii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................... vi
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
I. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS................................................................................. 3

Q1. What is a National Preventive Mechanism?.................................................................4
Q2. Why establish a National Preventive Mechanism?........................................................5
Q3. What are the functions of a National Preventive Mechanism? .......................................6
Q4. Where and when do National Preventive Mechanisms conduct visits? ............................6
Q5. What are the main types of National Preventive Mechanism?........................................8
Q6. What is the relationship between the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and
National Preventive Mechanisms? ........................................................................... 11
Q7. Where can States obtain technical assistance to establish or ensure the effective
functioning of National Preventive Mechanisms? ....................................................... 12
II. KEY CRITERIA FOR AN EFFECTIVE NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM .................. 13

Functional independence ........................................................................................... 15
Membership............................................................................................................... 17
Strategy and continuous assessment .......................................................................... 20
Visiting functions ....................................................................................................... 21
Advisory functions ..................................................................................................... 27
Cooperation functions ............................................................................................... 28
Educational and communication functions ................................................................. 30
Technical assistance – the OPCAT Special Fund .......................................................... 34
III. ANNEXES................................................................................................................... 37
ANNEX 1: Sample resources and tools ...................................................................... 39
ANNEX 2: SPT guidelines on National Preventive Mechanisms ......................................... 40
ANNEX 3: Non-exhaustive list of illustrative questions for interviews with persons
deprived of liberty in police stations/prisons ............................................ 43
ANNEX 4: SPT analytical assessment tool for National Preventive Mechanisms ......... 44
ANNEX 5: NPM assessment matrix for NPMs ............................................................ 52
ANNEX 6: How to contribute to the OPCAT Special Fund .......................................... 66
Iv
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
CAT Committee against Torture
CSO Civil society organization
LGBTI Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex
NGO Nongovernmental organization
NHRI National Human Rights Institution
NPM National Preventive Mechanism
OHCHR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
OPCAT Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture
SPT Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture
UNVFVT United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture
vi I PREVENTING TORTURE: THE ROLE OF NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS – A PRACTICAL GUIDE

INTRODUCTION
“The National Preventive Mechanisms represent the most significant single measure which
States can take to prevent torture and ill-treatment occurring over time.”
Ms. Aisha Shujune Muhammad, Vice-Chair,
United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture
Among the many measures taken to prevent torture, the establishment of National Preventive Mechanisms
(NPMs) has recently gained prominence. While monitoring bodies have existed in the past, the
Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment (adopted in 2002, in force in 2006)1 has introduced a particular model of preventive
monitoring. It combines monitoring at international level (by the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture
(SPT) )2 and at national level (by NPMs) through unannounced visits to places where individuals are
deprived of liberty. Each of these mechanisms and the interplay between them has the potential for
reducing incidences of torture and ill-treatment in the States parties to the Optional Protocol. Given that
visits by the SPT are unlikely to be frequent, NPMs play a particularly important role in translating the
political will to prevent torture and ill-treatment into practical action “on the ground”, as the frequency
of their visits will complement the periodic visits undertaken by the SPT.
The States parties to the Optional Protocol3 are obliged to set up, designate or maintain NPMs
within one year of ratification or accession to the Protocol. Compliance with the Optional Protocol
includes not only the establishment of NPMs but also ensuring their effective functioning. NPMs
should be able to exercise their mandates so as to contribute effectively to the prevention of torture
and ill-treatment. This includes the States’ legal obligation of ensuring that members of NPMs have
the relevant expertise, that these mechanisms have (i) sufficient financial and human resources, (ii)
unrestricted access to all places where persons are, or may be, deprived of liberty, and (iii) the
ability to work without threats or sanctions being made against them or against those who work
with them or provide them with relevant information.4 Above all, NPMs should enjoy true functional
independence. Recommendations made by NPMs need to be considered by the relevant authorities
and other addressees and acted upon. NPMs should have clear and effective strategies in this regard.
This Guide seeks to respond to key questions frequently asked about NPMs, and to explain the four
core functions of the mechanisms – visiting, providing advice, enhancing cooperation and educating
– which are key to their effective functioning. The Guide is complemented by checklists and other
guidance, which offer practical tools to aid their performance.
1
Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, adopted on 18 December 2002 at the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly of the United
Nations by resolution A/RES/57/199, entered into force on 22 June 2006 available at: http://www.ohchr.org/
EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/OPCAT.aspx.
2
The Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of
the Committee against Torture (hereinafter “the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture” or “SPT”) is a treaty body
established by article 5 of the Optional Protocol. According to article 11 of the Optional Protocol, it has the mandate
to visit the places of detention and make recommendations to States parties concerning the protection of persons
deprived of their liberty against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
3
There are 88 State parties and 14 Signatories of the OPCAT as of 29 May 2018. The latest information is available
at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-9-b&chapter=4&clang=_en.
4
Articles 18, 19, 20, 21 of the OPCAT.
INTRODUCTION I 1
This Guide aims to assist both States planning to establish or seeking to strengthen their NPMs, as
well as the staff of the NPMs themselves. It should also be useful to experts and professionals involved
in the prevention and combating of torture, civil society organizations and the general public.
The publication builds on the recommendations of the SPT relating to NPMs, which are contained in
the SPT’s reports on country visits undertaken as part of its mandate,5 as well as key SPT documents
on NPMs: SPT guidelines on National Preventive Mechanisms (CAT/OP/12/5), SPT analytical
assessment tool for National Preventive Mechanisms (CAT/OP/1/Rev.1) and the SPT NPM matrix.
These documents are annexed to the Guide.
The Guide was developed in the context of the Office of the United Nations High Commisssioner
for Human Rights (OHCHR) Treaty Body Capacity Building Programme, established by General
Assembly Resolution 68/268 to support States parties in building their capacity to implement their
treaty obligations, in this case, their obligations under the Optional Protocol.
5
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/OPCAT/Pages/Outline.aspx.
2 I PREVENTING TORTURE: THE ROLE OF NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS – A PRACTICAL GUIDE

FREQUENTLY ASKED
QUESTIONS
© UN Photo/Martine Perret
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Question 1: What is a National Preventive Mechanism?
National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) are bodies established in accordance with the Optional
Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT). According to OPCAT article 3, States parties
should set up, designate or maintain at domestic level one or several visiting bodies for the prevention
of torture6 and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment7 (“National Preventive
Mechanisms”).
National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) are independent visiting bodies established at

domestic level, composed of one or more bodies, for the prevention of torture and other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
6
The Convention against Torture defines “torture” as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or
mental, intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or
a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or
intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such
pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other
person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental
to lawful sanctions (article 1 of CAT).
7
The Convention against Torture refers to acts of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”, which do
not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the
consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity (article 16 of CAT).

The mandate and powers of NPMs should comply with the provisions of the Optional Protocol. The
most relevant of these provisions are articles 3, 4, 17-23, 29 and 35, although other provisions
of the Optional Protocol are also of importance for NPMs. Their mandates should be clearly set
forth in constitutional or legislative texts setting out their composition and spheres of competence.
The main objective of NPMs is to examine the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty, with
a view to strengthening their protection against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment. NPMs make recommendations to the relevant authorities (such as ministries,
police headquarters, prison headquarters, and management in places of deprivation of liberty) on
improving the treatment and condition of persons deprived of their liberty, and submit proposals and
observations on existing or draft legislation.
The mandate’s character is preventive; NPMs do not undertake investigations or adjudicate on

complaints concerning torture or ill-treatment, even if they encounter such cases while carrying out
their visiting function. The legislation establishing NPMs should oblige the competent authorities and
other stakeholders to examine recommendations of the NPMs, and to enter into dialogue with them
regarding their implementation.
A NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM IS NOT AN INVESTIGATIVE BODY. The man-

date of an NPM differs from other bodies working against torture in its preventive
approach: it seeks to identify patterns and detect systemic risks of torture, rather than
investigating or adjudicating complaints concerning torture or ill-treatment.
Question 2: Why establish a National Preventive Mechanism?
ÎÎTO FULFIL LEGAL OBLIGATIONS RELATING TO TORTURE PREVENTION
According to articles 3 and 17 of the OPCAT, States parties to the Optional Protocol should set up,
design or maintain NPMs within one year of their ratification or accession.8
More broadly, there is an absolute prohibition of torture in international law, with no exceptions. Moreover
international law also includes a legal obligation on States to prevent torture. According to article 2 (1)
of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, a
State party is obliged to adopt effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent
acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. This obligation extends to the prevention of other acts
of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under article 16 of the Convention.
The obligation to prevent torture and ill-treatment reinforces the prohibition of torture. At the same
time, it remains an obligation in its own right, and failure to take appropriate preventive measures
would be a breach of obligations under the Convention.
The States parties to the Optional Protocol should:

uuat national level, publicly promulgate the body designated as the NPM;
uuat international level, notify the SPT promptly of the body designated as the NPM.
8
The obligation to set up, designate or maintain the National Preventive Mechanism may be postponed by up
to three years if a declaration has been made in accordance with article 24 of the OPCAT. This period may be
postponed for another two years by the Committee against Torture, after due representation made by the State
party and consultations with the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS I 5

ÎÎTO EFFECTIVELY PREVENT TORTURE
Preventive monitoring contributes to the decrease of acts of torture and ill-treatment. Such acts are
more likely to occur in places that are not subject to independent and external scrutiny. Through its
visits to places where there are or may be persons deprived of their liberty, NPMs conduct such critical
examination. Monitoring conditions of detention and the identification of shortcomings in relevant rules,
procedures and practices, as well as recommendations aimed at addressing these shortcomings, help
promote institutional reform and good practices that reduce the risk of torture and ill-treatment.
Question 3: What are the functions of National Preventive Mechanisms?
The key function of NPMs is their visiting function, namely carrying out visits to places of detention.
According to article 4 of the Optional Protocol, the visiting mandate of NPMs must extend to all
places where people are, or may be, deprived of their liberty, for example in the sense of their
not being free to leave.9 The purpose of such visits is to regularly examine the treatment of persons
deprived of their liberty.
NPMs also have an advisory function that includes providing recommendations to State authorities
(opinions, proposals, reports); submitting legislative proposals; reviewing rules concerning both
detention (interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices) and personnel-related issues
regarding those involved in the custody, interrogation and treatment of persons deprived of their
liberty (including, for example, law enforcement; civil, military or medical personnel; and public
officials); and contributing to States parties reports or presenting their own reports to human rights
mechanisms and following up their recommendations.
The educational function of NPMs includes participation in training and development of educational
and awareness-raising programmes in schools, universities and professional circles; and examination
of the curricula of educational institutions to ensure that education and information on the prohibition
of torture is included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military personnel, medical
personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or
treatment of any individual subject to any form of detention.
The cooperation function embraces engagement through meaningful dialogue with the State party
authorities and other relevant stakeholders concerning prevention of torture and ill-treatment. Further,
NPMs establish and maintain contact both with other NPMs, with a view to sharing experiences and
reinforcing effectiveness, and with the SPT, through regular meetings and the exchange of information.
Question 4: Where and when do National Preventive Mechanisms conduct visits?
NPMs should have unrestricted access to all places, including any suspected places where persons
are or may be deprived of their liberty, either by virtue of an order given by public authorities or at
their instigation or with their consent or acquiescence, within the jurisdiction of the States parties. The
jurisdiction of States parties extends to all places over which they exercise effective control. These
include all places in the territories of the States parties, as well as those not situated within their
territories but still within their powers or effective controls. They also include those places in which
9
Article 4 para 2 defines deprivation of liberty as “any form of detention or imprisonment or the placement of a
person in a public or private custodial setting which that person is not permitted to leave at will by order of any
judicial, administrative or other authority”.

persons are de facto detained, for example individuals who in practice are unable to leave of their
own free will and over whom the States exercise a regulatory function.
The preventive approach underpinning the Optional Protocol means that the interpretation of “places
where the persons are or may be deprived of their liberty” should be as extensive as possible in order
to maximize the preventive impact of the work of NPMs.
The Optional Protocol does not contain any lists of places of deprivation of liberty and purposefully
adopts a broad, open-textured approach.
CHECKLIST: ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES OF PLACES OF DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY

(NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST)
;; police stations
;; pre-trial detention centres
;; remand prisons
;; prisons
;; juvenile detention centres
;; border police facilities and transit zones at land crossings, international ports and
airports
;; immigration and asylum seekers’ detention centres
;; psychiatric institutions
;; security and intelligence service facilities
;; detention facilities under military jurisdiction
;; places of administrative detention
;; means of transport for the transfer of detainees
;; social care homes provided by the State or subject to State regulations or licensing
;; unofficial places of detention (such as those operating secret detentions)
ÎÎNPMS AND CROSS-BORDER MONITORING OF PERSONS IN DETENTION

There might be occasions when States parties to the Optional Protocol (sending States) enter into
arrangements under which those detained by the States are held in facilitates located in other States
(receiving States). In these cases, the SPT recognizes that sending States should ensure that such
agreements provide for NPMs to have the legal and practical capacities to visit those detainees
in accordance with the provisions of the OPCAT and the SPT guidelines on National Preventive
Mechanisms. In addition, NPMs of the receiving States should also have the capacity to visit those
in detention based on such agreements, as a natural consequence of fulfilling their mandates. After
undertaking such visits, the NPMs of the sending States and/or the NPMs of the receiving States should
be able to present their recommendations and enter into preventive dialogue with the authorities of
both the sending and receiving States. Agreements entered into between the sending and receiving
States should provide for the NPMs’ collaboration and permit variations in the terms thereof, in the
light of the recommendations made. The two NPMs should liaise on the conduct of such visits and
consider making joint visits and recommendations.10
10
Ninth annual report of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment, CAT/C/57/4, Annex: Compilation of advice provided by the Subcommittee in response to the
request of the National Preventive Mechanisms (Compilation of advice by SPT to NPMs), p. 22.

Question 5: What are the main types of National Preventive Mechanism?
The Optional Protocol does not prescribe that NPMs take any particular or specific form. Rather, it
leaves it to each State party “to maintain, designate or establish one or several preventive mechanisms
for the prevention of torture at the domestic level”.11 States can either establish new bodies or designate
existing NPMs, including decentralized units. No preferred model exists as such; the key is that the
mechanism shall comply with the requirements of the Optional Protocol by allowing it to perform its
independent visiting mandate and other functions. Entities designated as NPMs include, for example,
national human rights institutions, including the Ombudsperson,12 the “Ombudsman plus model”,13
national human rights commissions,14 and consultative commissions.15 Similarly, a “one-size-fits-all”
legislative approach does not exist, since such legislation should take into account the specificities of
each national context. The SPT and others experienced in the establishment of NPMs (such as other
NPMs or civil society organizations) can offer valuable practical guidance on the approaches that
might work well in the context in question.16
Where organizations designated as NPMs also perform other functions, it is often preferable that the
NPMs’ functions be located within separate units or departments, with their own staff and separate
budgets.
© UN Photo/Marco Dormino
11
Article 17 of the Optional Protocol.
12
For example, in Azerbaijan, Croatia, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden and Ukraine.
13
The “Ombudsman plus model” is the term used to describe situations in which the mandate of the Ombudsman has
been expanded to include NPM functions and is sometimes also used to describe cases where other bodies are
invited to work with the Ombudsman’s Office in fulfilling the NPM mandate, as is the case, for example, in Denmark,
Moldova, and Serbia.
14
For example, in the Maldives, Mauritius and New Zealand (the latter being one of the NPM’s bodies).
15
For example, in Mali.
16
See, for example, the Compilation of advice by SPT to NPMs, p. 21.

EXAMPLES OF NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS17
ARMENIA: THE HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER’S OFFICE
In 2008 Parliament designated the Human Rights Defender’s Office as the National Preventive
Mechanism through an amendment to the 2003 Law on the Human Rights Defender. Article 6.1
of the Law, introduced in 2008, states that the Human Rights Defender is recognized as an
independent NPM under the Optional Protocol. The law and subsequent amendments provide no
further detail on the functioning of the NPM. The tasks and powers of the NPM therefore derive
from the Optional Protocol, in particular articles 19 and 20, and have been further elaborated
on in relevant internal regulations.
SPT visit report to Armenia (CAT/OP/ARM/2)
BRAZIL: THE NATIONAL SYSTEM TO PREVENT AND COMBAT TORTURE
The National System to Prevent and Combat Torture comprises variety of institutions and bodies,
including the National Committee to Prevent and Combat Torture, the National Mechanism to
Prevent and Combat Torture, the National Penitentiary Department, the National Council on
Criminal and Prison Policies, and local committees to prevent and combat torture at State level. The
role of the National System is to integrate all these bodies and institutions and to hold an annual
meeting. The National Committee was established in 2014 and became operational in 2015.
SPT visit report to Brazil (CAT/OP/BRA/3)
DENMARK: PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN
The Parliamentary Ombudsman is the designated authority in Denmark to carry out special supervision
of the conditions afforded to persons deprived of their liberty. In order to ensure that the Parliamentary
Ombudsman has the necessary authority to carry out inspections of private institutions in accordance
with the mandate of the OPCAT, the Ombudsman Act was amended to include persons deprived
of their liberty in private institutions, and to provide that these institutions have a duty to pass on
information, hand over documents and prepare written statements to the Ombudsman.
In addition, the Act stipulates that ”if it is deemed necessary, and against due proof of identity, the
Parliamentary Ombudsman has access at any time to inspect without warrant private institutions,
where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty. If necessary, the police will assist in the
execution thereof.” The NPM has also concluded agreements with the Danish Institute for Human
Rights (NHRI) and DIGNITY (NGO) on formal collaboration with civil society organizations in
order to strengthen the Ombudsman’s monitoring activities.
GERMANY: THE NATIONAL AGENCY FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE
The Federal Agency for the Prevention of Torture and the Joint Commission of the Länder for the
Prevention of Torture together form the two pillars of the National Mechanism for the Prevention
of Torture, which was established in 2010. The Federal Agency is responsible for facilities run at
federal level (detention facilities operated by the Federal Armed Forces, Federal Police and the
German Customs Administration), and the Joint Commission of the Länder is responsible for facilities
under the jurisdiction of the States/Länder (police, judiciary, detention facilities in psychiatric clinics,
establishments of custody pending deportation, nursing homes, and youth welfare establishments).
SPT visit report to Germany – NPM report (CAT/OP/DEU/2)
17
The National Preventive Mechanisms included hereunder are presented only as illustrative examples of different
models and not as endorsement by the SPT or OHCHR. More information about different NPMs is available at
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/OPCAT/Pages/NationalPreventiveMechanisms.aspx.

NEW ZEALAND: THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND FOUR MECHANISMS
In New Zealand the Human Rights Commission was designated as the Central National Preventive
Mechanism with a coordinating role, and four NPMs were designated to inspect and monitor
specific categories of places of detention, namely:
uuthe Ombudsman – in relation to prisons, premises approved or agreed under the Immigration
Act 1987, health and disability places of detention and youth justice residences;
uuthe Independent Police Conduct Authority – in relation to people held in police cells and
otherwise in the custody of the police;
uuthe Children’s Commissioner – in relation to children and young persons in residences;
uuthe Inspector of Service Penal Establishments – in relation to Defence Force Service Custody and
Service Corrective Establishments.
SPT visit report to New Zealand (CAT/OP/NZL/1)
SENEGAL: THE NATIONAL OBSERVATORY OF PLACES OF DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY
In 2011 the Council of Ministers approved the implementing decree of the legislation establishing
the National Observer of Places of Deprivation of Liberty, which established a new institution as
NPM. In 2012 the Council of Ministers approved the appointment of a former magistrate and
technical adviser to the Ministry of Justice as the National Observer.
SPT visit report to Senegal – NPM report (CAT/OP/SEN/2)
TUNISIA: THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE
The NPM is a recently-created specialized institution, established in 2013, through a transitional

process during which a number of independent human-rights-related bodies were created. The
Law No. 2013-43 establishing the NPM was produced through a participatory process involving
experts from civil society and the public administration.
In November 2013 the Parliament issued a public call for candidates for membership of the NPM.
Owing to lack of applications, the call for candidates was renewed several times throughout
2014 and 2015. In March 2016 the 16 members of the NPM were elected by the Parliament.
OHCHR Tunisia and the SPT, as well as other stakeholders, provided continuous support for the
establishment of the NPM and thereafter in respect of its effective functioning in accordance with
OPCAT.
SPT visit report to Tunisia – NPM report – (CAT/OP/TUN/R.2)

Question 6: What is the relationship between the Subcommittee on Prevention of
Torture and National Preventive Mechanisms?
The Optional Protocol envisages exchanges of information and collaboration between the
Subcommittee and NPMs.18 Once NPMs are established, the Subcommittee establishes and
maintains direct contact with them.19 The SPT provides such advice and assistance via regular e-mail
correspondence and other forms of contact between itself and each NPM, through SPT country
rapporteurs with responsibility for liaising with the NPMs concerned. The SPT has also created a
section on its public web page where it publishes (on an anonymous basis) answers to some of
the many queries which it has received from NPMs, as a way of providing more general practical
advice on NPM-related practices.20
The Subcommittee supports and advises NPMs through:

uuoffering training and technical assistance, with a view to strengthening their capacities;
uuassisting in the evaluation of their needs and the means necessary to strengthen the protection
of persons deprived of their liberty against torture and ill-treatment; and
uumaking recommendations and observations to States parties, to strengthen the capacity and
mandate of NPMs.
To fulfil its advisory functions, the Subcommittee has developed guidelines on National Preventive
Mechanisms (CAT /OP/12/5) and an analytical assessment tool for National Preventive Mechanisms
(CAT/OP/1/Rev.1) and a NPM assessment matrix for NPMs.
The Subcommittee also gives strategic guidance to the Special Fund,21 established under article 26 of
the Optional Protocol, which provides financial grants for projects aimed inter alia at establishing or
strengthening the effective functioning of NPMs. Project proposals should be focused on implementing
the Subcommittee’s recommendations in this regard, contained in the publicly-accessible visit report.22
NPMs may themselves apply for a grant (see the section on Technical Assistance – OPCAT Special
Fund for more details).
Under the Optional Protocol, NPMs should cooperate with the Subcommittee. The Optional Protocol
explicitly recognizes the obligation of States parties to grant NPMs the right to have contact with the
Subcommittee, to send it information and to meet with it.23 Most NPMs provide the Subcommittee with
their annual reports, which the Subcommittee then publishes on its website.24
18
Article 20 (f) of the Optional Protocol.
19
Article 11(b) of the Optional Protocol.
20
See, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/OPCAT/Pages/NationalPreventiveMechanisms.aspx.
21
http://www.ohchr.org/opcatfund.
22
SPT reports are confidential until the State parties or NPMs agree to make them public.
23
Article 20(f) of the Optional Protocol.
24
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/OPCAT/Pages/AnnualreportsreceivedfromNPM.aspx.

Question 7: Where can States obtain technical assistance to establish or ensure the
effective functioning of National Preventive Mechanisms?
The establishment and effective functioning of NPMs requires expertise and resources. States can
request technical assistance from the OHCHR Treaty Body Capacity Building Programme (TBCBP),
OHCHR field presences and the OPCAT Special Fund. OHCHR and SPT members have, at the
request of States, conducted national training courses on the ratification of the Optional Protocol, the
Convention against Torture, on NPMs and related matters. OHCHR field presences have provided
advice on legislation establishing NPMs, the selection process for members, collaboration with
the authorities and civil society, and other issues. Additionally, the OPCAT Special Fund annually
provides limited grants for projects implementing recommendations contained in the SPT public visit
reports, aimed at the establishment or strengthening of existing NPMs (see the section on Technical
Assistance – OPCAT Special Fund for more details).
States and other entities are encouraged to financially contribute to the OPCAT Special Fund to support
national torture prevention activities world-wide. The Fund relies entirely on voluntary contributions.25
© UN Photo/Victoria Hazou
25
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/OPCAT/Fund/Pages/Governance.aspx.

KEY CRITERIA FOR
AN EFFECTIVE
NATIONAL PREVENTIVE
MECHANISM
© UN/OHCHR Photo
KEY CRITERIA FOR AN EFFECTIVE

NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM
“As a matter of principle, I will encourage national authorities to grant National Preventive
Mechanisms the necessary independence and unrestricted access to all places where persons
may be deprived of their liberty. For there really is no better deterrent to torture than a strong
national will to combat and prevent such abhorrent abuse.”
Mr. Nils Melzer, Special Rapporteur on Torture
The effective functioning of NPMs is a continuing obligation of States parties to the Optional Protocol.
The effectiveness of NPMs should be subject to regular assessment by both the State party and the
NPM itself, taking into account the views of the SPT.
Below are key criteria, which need to be met to ensure the effective functioning of NPMs:
uuIndependence (mandate, operational, financial)

uuExpert and independent members
uuEffective and continuously re-assessed strategy
uuFulfilment of key functions

ÎÎFUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE
Guaranteeing the functional independence of NPMs and the independence of their personnel are
legal obligations of States parties to the Optional Protocol.26 The Optional Protocol also provides
that States parties give due consideration to the Paris Principles,27 as a further source of guidance
regarding guarantees of independence,28 when establishing NPMs. Functional independence
includes the legislative mandate, and operational and financial independence.
Legislative mandate
NPMs should have their mandate set out in a constitutional or legislative text. Such texts should specify
their mandate, powers, selection process, terms of office, funding and lines of accountability.29
The legislative mandate should grant NPMs powers that include visiting rights, access to information,
submission of recommendations, and providing for contact with the Subcommittee.30
CHECKLIST: MINIMUM POWERS INCLUDED IN THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE31
;; the power to freely select the places of deprivation of liberty in which the visits are to be
carried out;
;; the power to regularly examine the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in those places;
;; the power to select the timing of such visits and determine whether they are to be announced
or unannounced;
;; the power to choose the persons to be interviewed;
;; access to all information, including personal and sensitive information, premises and persons
necessary for pursuing its mandate;
;; the power to make recommendations to the relevant authorities and other addressees;
;; the power to submit proposals and observations concerning existing or draft legislation; and
;; the right to have contact with the Subcommittee.
Operational independence
NPMs should have operational independence. They should not be placed under the institutional
control of an executive branch of government, such as a ministry, cabinet or executive council,
president or prime minister. The law should explicitly provide that the executive branch does not
interfere with the mandate and operations of NPMs (for example, by issuing instructions to their staff,
changing their mandate, etc.).
26
Article 18 (1) of the Optional Protocol.
27
Principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights, UN General
Assembly resolution A/RES/48/134 (Annex), 20 December 1993 (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/
Pages/StatusOfNationalInstitutions.aspx). The Paris Principles are a set of international standards that frame and
guide the work of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs). As NPMs, NHRIs are funded by the State but are
independent of it. NHRIs must comply with the Principles, which identify their human rights objectives and provide for
their independence, broad human rights mandate, adequate funding, and an inclusive and transparent selection and
appointment process. The Principles are broadly accepted as the test of an institution’s legitimacy and credibility.
28
29
See also NPM assessment matrix for NPMs, SPT, paras 55-90.
30
Articles 19 and 20 of the Optional Protocol.
31
See, for example, SPT visit report Gabon (CAT/OP/GAB/1), 20 May 2015, para. 17; SPT visit report Honduras
(CAT/OP/HND/1), 10 February 2010, para. 264, SPT visit report Armenia (CAT/OP/ARM/1). 22 May 2015,
para. 27, SPT visit report Germany (CAT/OP/DEU/1), 16 December 2013, para. 36.
KEY CRITERIA FOR AN EFFECTIVE NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM I 15

NPMs should not be required to exercise additional mandates that could conflict with or compromise
the OPCAT mandate, such as the adjudication of complaints, prosecution or an administrative
mandate (such as administration of prisons).
Relationship between National Preventive Mechanisms and National Human Rights Institutions
Where National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) are designated as NPMs, the Subcommittee may
recommend that such NPMs operate within them as separate organizational units, with their own
discrete Heads exercising operational autonomy. For example, NPMs should not become sections
of legal departments, since this would diminish their independence and visibility. Ultimately, the
organizational structure should reflect the Optional Protocol’s requirements, including operational
autonomy as regards their resources, work plans, findings, recommendations and direct (and, if need
be, confidential) contact with the SPT.
Coordination between NHRIs and NPMs can be beneficial, given the complementarity of their work.
For example, complaints received by NHRIs in relation to a specific place of detention may inform
the preventive work of NPMs, while NPMs’ work can also be of value to those engaged in the
investigation of complaints or other allegations.32
Relationship between National Preventive Mechanisms and Civil Society Organizations
Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) play an important role in the prevention, monitoring and
combating of torture, and assisting victims in many countries. CSOs comprise different actors,
including non-governmental and professional organizations (medical or bar associations, etc.), and
communication and collaboration between NPMs and CSOs has been crucial in torture prevention.
The SPT recommends that NPMs “establish sustainable lines of communication” with CSOs.33 From
the point of view of maintaining impartiality, NPMs should always be careful to preserve their
independence. For example, when CSOs invite NPMs to cooperate in projects, NPMs should, if
possible, be involved at the planning stage, and prevention should remain at the heart of any joint
activity to ensure that NPMs do not exceed their mandate.34
Financial independence
States parties have a legal obligation to make a specific allocation of the resources necessary
to allow NPMs to function effectively and independently and carry out all OPCAT-related tasks.
Financial autonomy is a fundamental prerequisite for independence. The legislation providing for
the establishment of NPMs should also include provisions regarding the source and nature of their
funding, and specify the process for the allocation of annual funding to the NPMs.
The steps in budgetary allocation may be as follows:
1. NPMs draw up their own annual budgets according to their work plan.
2. The global amount of funding under these draft budgets is submitted to the
relevant authority and/or the Parliament. If NPMs are established within existing
institutions (e.g., Ombudspersons and NHRIs), their budgets should be drafted
and submitted separately from those institutions.
3. The heads of the NPMs present their budgets.
32
Compilation of advice by the SPT to NPMs, p. 21.
33
analytical assessment tool, para. 30.
34
Article 18(1) and (3) of the Optional Protocol.

4. NPMs are entitled to determine their own spending priorities within their overall
allocated budgets.
Bearing in mind the requirement for independence, NPMs should also be free to raise funds from
other sources such as private or foreign donor agencies. Such funds should not disqualify the
institutions from receiving public funds; on the contrary, governments that create such institutions
have a continuing legal obligation to fund them.
ÎÎMEMBERSHIP
Expertise and independence
The members of NPMs shall collectively have the expertise and experience necessary for the effective
functioning of such mechanisms.35 Their teams should embody a diversity of professional backgrounds
and experience,36 as well as take into account gender balance and representation of ethnic, minority
and indigenous groups.37 Relevant expertise includes legal, medical, psychological, child-related
and gender expertise, and any other related expertise so as to allow NPMs to carry out their activities
in accordance with the Optional Protocol, in an informed and inter-disciplinary fashion.
NPMs should choose their own staff without external interference. Their staff should have relevant
expertise and experience, including legal and health-care expertise, and the diversity of background,
capability and professional knowledge necessary to enable NPMs to fulfil their mandates. In order
to cover any shortages in human resources or gaps in expertise, NPMs should be able to engage
external expertise, consider setting up internship programmes, or partner with universities and civil
society or similar institutions such as social care homes.
Members should be personally and institutionally independent of State authorities. They should not
hold positions or have personal connections that would entail a real or perceived conflict of interest
when undertaking the mandates of NPMs. For example, prosecutors, prison professionals, persons
with political affiliations or close personal relations with governments, as well as judges or defence
attorneys, may run into such real or perceived conflicts of interest and would therefore be unsuitable
for membership of NPMs.
The terms of office, which may be renewable, should be sufficient to foster the independent functioning of
NPMs, including security of tenure and appropriate remuneration, to attract persons with accumulated
experience in the field of prevention of torture, and to build up institutional knowledge. For example,
some States favour a five-year period of office, which may be sufficient to allow members to be
effective but not be overly concerned about their future prospects.38 Others favour longer terms that
are fixed and non-renewable. The positions should be adequately remunerated.
NPMs should also have exclusive authority to develop their own rules of procedure in order to ensure
their operational autonomy.
RULES OF PROCEDURE should address the following issues:
uuBudgets for all activities

uuDecision-making processes
35
Article 18(2) of the Optional Protocol.
36
See, for example, SPT visit report Sweden (CAT/OP/SWE/1), 2008, para. 36.
37
Article 18(2) of the Optional Protocol.
38
See, also, Assessing Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions, p. 12 (OHCHR, International Council on
Human Rights Policy, 2005).

uuEmployment and dismissal of staff
uuPrevention of conflict of interest
uuEmployment of external experts (establishing qualifications and terms of reference)
uuInformation-sharing within NPMs
uuCommunication with other actors – national and international, including the SPT
uuCommunication with the press and media
uuData protection and confidentiality
Selection process
Members of NPMs should be selected through an open, transparent and inclusive process. The
selection process should be prescribed in the law governing the NPMs.
As regards the members of such mechanisms, legislation should specify the following:
uuthe selection process of members (method and criteria of appointment);
uuthe period of office of members; and
uuany grounds for dismissal of members (and appeal procedures).
As regards members and staff of NPMs, legislation should also specify:

uuprivileges and immunities of members and staff, which are necessary for the independent exercise
of their functions; and
uuprotection against reprisals against members or staff, their families or any persons who have
communicated with NPMs.
The selection process should involve consultations with a broad variety of civil society groups, such
as non-governmental organizations, social and professional organizations, and universities, as well
as other experts. The selection process may be led by special appointment bodies, parliamentary
committees or independent judicial commissions or similar bodies.
© UN Photo/Christopher Herwig

STEPS PRIOR TO SELECTION
uuAdvertise publicly the vacant post(s) in NPMs;
uuConsult civil society organizations and other stakeholders; and
uuEncourage candidatures of persons from different backgrounds, professions and areas of
expertise, taking account of gender balance and adequate representation of ethnic, minority
and indigenous groups.
Privileges and immunities
Under the Optional Protocol, States are obliged to accord members and the staff of NPMs the
privileges and immunities necessary for the independent exercise of their functions.39 These privileges
and immunities protect the independent exercise of NPMs’ mandates.
CHECKLIST: IMMUNITIES
During the exercise of their mandates and in connection with NPMs’ work, the following should
be ensured:
;; Immunity from personal arrest and detention

;; Immunity from seizure of personal baggage
;; Immunity from seizure or surveillance of papers and documents
;; Absence of interference with communication
During and after the exercise of their mandates:
;; Immunity from legal action in respect of words spoken or written, or acts done, in the course
of the performance of NPMs’ duties
In addition to these immunities, confidential information collected by NPMs should be privileged.40

Legislation by States parties should not permit search or seizure, or otherwise compel disclosure, of
confidential information held by NPMs or of the sources of such information.
Protection against reprisals
The relevant legislation (such as the legislative act establishing NPMs) should guarantee the prohibition
of ordering, applying, permitting or tolerating any sanctions against any persons or organizations for
having communicated with the NPMs any information, whether true or false, and no such persons or
organizations shall be otherwise prejudiced in any way.41
39
Article 35 of the Optional Protocol. See the SPT guidelines on National Preventive Mechanisms, providing that States
ensure that both the members of the NPMs and their staff enjoy such privileges as are necessary for the independent
exercise of their functions. While it is accepted that essential basic security measures are to be complied with for
the benefit of all concerned, it is equally important that those working for NPMs not be in any way restricted in their
work and that they not feel that they might be subject to any form of pressure. Routine body searches and pat-downs
contravene the spirit of the Optional Protocol. Members of the mechanisms and their staff should only be subject
to or exempt from searches in the same manner as other authorities with similar or equal privileges and immunities
as those granted to members of NPMs by the Optional Protocol and ought to include freedom from such searches.
(CAT/OP/12/5), para. 26.
40
41
Article 21 (1) of the Optional Protocol; please see also the Guidelines against Intimidation or Reprisals (“San José
Guidelines”) (HRI/MC/2015/6), the Policy of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on reprisals in relation to its visiting mandate (CAT/OP/6/Rev.1).

The strongest guarantee of effective monitoring mechanisms is the ability of their members to do their
work without threats or sanctions against them. At the same time, an important element is protection
against reprisals for detainees and their close contacts or representatives who communicate with the
monitoring bodies. Fear of reprisals is a major obstacle to effective monitoring work.
All persons communicating with NPMs, whether detainees, patients, employees of detention facilities,
psychiatric hospitals and similar facilities, members of civil society, State representatives, and others,
should be confident that any information provided remains confidential and that they will be not
subjected to any retaliation for providing such information.
ÎÎSTRATEGY AND CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT

In order to maximize their effectiveness and impact, NPMs should develop long-term and short-term
strategies. NPMs should monitor and assess their activities and the outcomes thereof on an ongoing
basis. Such strategies should be subject to periodic evaluation and improvement, and may also
include other partners, including the SPT.
Such assessments may take into account the following activities and factors:
uuExisting problems and challenges

uuGood practices
uuCriteria for the selection of planned activities as well as for those calling for immediate responses
uuCriteria for the composition of working groups, visiting and outreach teams
uuBudgets and resources
uuStrategies and working methods for implementing activities
uuCooperation with other actors
uuRecommendations to authorities and other appropriate bodies
uuFollow-up activities
uuInformation management (systematization of observations, recommendations, responses, infor-
mation on implementation)
The Subcommittee has published the SPT analytical assessment tool for National Preventive
Mechanisms and the NPM assessment matrix for NPMs to facilitate self-evaluation
of mandated activities. These tools reflect the principles set out in previously-issued
documents and guidelines and the prevailing thinking in the field.
Please see these documents in the Annexes.
Information management
NPMs should ensure that important, concrete and contextual observations arising from their visits to
institutions and stemming from other reliable sources, as well as their recommendations and responses
from the authorities and other addressees are appropriately categorized, filed and systematically
processed for planning, strategy development and dialogue with authorities and other addressees.

ÎÎVISITING FUNCTIONS
“I believe that the National Preventive Mechanisms are hugely important, they are the main
treasure and the essence of the system established by the OPCAT.”
Mr. Mykola Gnatovskyy, Chair of the Committee on the
Prevention of Torture of the Council of Europe (CPT)
In accordance with the provisions of articles 4 and 19 of the Optional Protocol, NPMs shall have
the power to conduct visits to any place under the jurisdiction or effective control of the States parties
where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty, in order to regularly examine the treatment of
persons in those places and to make recommendations to the relevant authorities.
I. Access to places where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty
In order to fulfil this mandate, NPMs shall have access to all places where they believe persons may
be deprived of their liberty. Consistent with a preventive approach, a broad understanding of the
meaning of “places of deprivation of liberty” should be adopted (please also see Question 4).
NPMs should be able to choose freely the places of deprivation of liberty in which visits are to be
carried out, to determine whether the visits will be announced or unannounced, and have unrestricted
access to all parts of the premises and facilities.
The visits should be primarily unannounced in order to help ascertain the real situation of persons
deprived of their liberty. They should also be carried out at various times of the day, including during
the night.
© UN/OHCHR Photo

Article 4 of the Optional Protocol:
1. Each State Party shall allow visits, in accordance with the present Protocol, by
the mechanisms referred to in articles 2 and 3 to any place under its jurisdiction
and control where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty, either by
virtue of an order given by a public authority or at its instigation or with its
consent or acquiescence (hereinafter referred to as places of detention). These
visits shall be undertaken with a view to strengthening, if necessary, the protection
of these persons against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.
2. For the purpose of the present Protocol, deprivation of liberty means any form
of detention or imprisonment or the placement of a person in a public or private
custodial setting which that person is not permitted to leave at will by order of
any judicial, administrative or other authority.
The Subcommittee has interpreted the scope of article 4 of the Optional Protocol as follows:
Article 4 contains two paragraphs that must be read together and that place within the scope of
the Optional Protocol any public or private custodial setting under the jurisdiction and control of
the State Party, in which persons may be deprived of their liberty and are not permitted to leave,
either by an order given by any judicial, administrative or other authority or at its instigation or
with its consent or acquiescence.
The preventive approach underpinning the Optional Protocol means that as extensive an
interpretation as possible should be made in order to maximize the preventive impact of the work
of the National Preventive Mechanism.
The Subcommittee therefore takes the view that any place in which persons are deprived of their
liberty, in the sense of not being free to leave, or in which the Subcommittee considers that persons
might be being deprived of their liberty, should fall within the scope of the Optional Protocol,
if the deprivation of liberty relates to a situation in which the State either exercises, or might be
expected to exercise, a regulatory function. In all situations, the National Preventive Mechanism
should also be mindful of the principle of proportionality when determining its priorities and the
focus of its work.
(CAT/OP/C/57/4)
II. Access to persons
NPMs should have access to all persons, without the presence of the authorities, whose accounts they
may consider necessary in undertaking their mandates. They should be able to decide for themselves
which persons they should interview, including (i) persons deprived of their liberty from all areas
and units, (ii) administrative and other staff of the visited institutions, and (iii) their visitors, such as
members of civil society and others, including organizations working with persons at heightened risk
(such as migrants, ethnic and cultural minorities, and persons with disabilities). They should also be
able to decide when, where and how such persons are to be interviewed.
III. Access to information
NPMs should seek and be able to obtain prompt, regular and unhindered access to all information
relating to persons deprived of their liberty during their visits, including registers, case records, personal
files, incident registers, medical records and all other information necessary for pursuing their mandates,

as well as personal and sensitive information. Such access does not require the consent of the persons
deprived of liberty concerned,42 nor can such access be limited to only some members of NPMs (such
as limiting access to medical files to members of NPMs with a medical background).
IV. The principle of confidentiality
Confidential information collected by the NPMs shall be privileged.43 NPMs cannot publish any
personal data without the express consent of the person(s) concerned. The principle of confidentiality
should be strictly observed. This principle should be given the widest possible interpretation in order
to reflect the preventive spirit of the Optional Protocol. The principle of confidentiality extends to a
broad range of persons including, but not limited to, persons deprived of their liberty, their families,
lawyers, members of NGOs and State officials.
The confidentiality obligation should not prevent NPMs from disseminating information, provided that
such information does not include personal data or information that would allow identification of a
person, unless there is express consent. For example, where information relating to systematic allegations
of torture or other crimes is gathered, its existence can be reported in general terms. However, particular
care must be taken to assess whether the sharing of information relating to a particular situation or crime
might inevitably lead to the disclosure of personal data or to the identification of a person who has not
given express consent for their personal data to be revealed (see also Protection against Reprisals).
NPMs should establish policies for working with external experts and specialists. Such policies should
include the responsibility of external experts for keeping confidential any data acquired in the course
of their work with the NPMs, and for not using the data for any external purpose, in order to maintain
the relationship of trust between persons deprived of their liberty and the NPMs.
V. Protection against reprisals for providing information to NPMs
Preventing and addressing reprisals against persons who have provided information to NPMs is an
important part of NPMs’ mandates. While NPMs do not have a mandate to investigate allegations
of reprisals, they should:
1. systematically remind States of their obligations to ensure the prohibition of

reprisals in all places of detention, including informing the staff of all places
of detention accordingly, and setting up investigative mechanisms to address
allegations of reprisals; and
2. monitor fulfilment of these obligations.
NPMs should develop strategies for preventing reprisals. Reprisals may take different forms, including
threats against detention centre staff, detainees, persons interviewed during visits and others who
may provide information both before or after visits. The strategies should also address reprisals that
may be made against members and staff of the NPMs, and should include, inter alia:
uuPolicies for the collection of information through group and private interviews. Whenever sensitive
information is obtained during private interviews, a number of additional private interviews
should be conducted to preserve the anonymity of the sources of this information.
42
According to rule 9 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, the information in the prisoner file management system “shall
be kept confidential and made available only to those whose professional responsibilities require access to such
records”.
43

uuObligations to inform management, staff and detainees in places of detention that reprisals are
explicitly prohibited by the Optional Protocol and, correspondingly, that the authorities shall
ensure absolute prohibition of reprisals.
uuDistribution of information about NPMs, including the absolute prohibition of reprisals, and
information on how to convey information to the NPMs in confidence.
Monitoring and follow-up of allegations of reprisals
NPMs should monitor cases of particular concern and follow them up, including through intensified
monitoring of places where reprisals have or are likely to have occurred. If appropriate, NPMs
should recommend and monitor the transfer of detainees or others at risk to other institutions. Follow-
up activities by NPMs should include, as appropriate:
uucontacting and following up with family members;

uucollaborating with other actors, such as non-governmental organizations, in interventions and the
provision of assistance;
uusharing information with international monitoring bodies; and
uuproviding recommendations to the relevant authorities.
Each case of alleged reprisals should be:
uuanalysed, verified and followed-up by NPMs; and, if appropriate,

uubrought to the attention of the relevant authorities in an anonymous manner, unless the consent of
the detainee concerned is obtained.
NPMs should request the authorities to investigate allegations of reprisals through disciplinary or
criminal investigation and, if relevant,
uuvictims and witnesses should be protected, and where relevant, compensated;

uualleged perpetrators should be prosecuted and, when found guilty, punished appropriately.
Well-founded concerns about reprisals should be considered for inclusion in the reporting of NPMs
and give rise to a recommendation for the improvement of institutional practices, with a view to
protecting and compensating the victims and preventing recurrences.44
VI. Conduct of visits
Planning
NPMs should collect data and background information on all places of detention.45 They should
actively seek information on all places of detention, and archive all relevant information on places of
detention and the treatment of persons.
NPMs should establish transparent and clear criteria for selecting places of detention to be visited,
bearing in mind the following:
uuthat all places of detention be visited regularly;

uuthe type, size, security level, and nature of human rights concerns; and
uuthe need for inclusion of urgent and follow-up visits.
44
CAT/OP/1/Rev.1, paragraph 37 (f).
45
According to article 20(1), States parties to OPCAT undertake to grant to NPMs “access to all information concerning
the number of persons deprived of their liberty in places of detention […], as well as the number of places and their
location.”

CHECKLIST: COMPOSITION OF VISITING TEAM
;; Language(s) relevant for the visit

;; Relevant experience and skills (such as legal, social, medical and psychological professionals;
child-related, gender and asylum-seeker specialists)
;; Gender balance and sensitivity
;; Representation of ethnic, minority and indigenous groups, if relevant
Visitation methodology
NPMs should develop guidelines, policies, practices and tools for their visits to various types of
places of detention. A list of useful resources and tools can be found in the Annex to this Guide.
NPMs should also establish workplans or programmes which, over time, encompass visits to all
locations under the jurisdiction and control of States where persons are or may be deprived of their
liberty, in accordance with articles 4 and 29 of the Optional Protocol.46
The guidelines and policies should address, inter alia, the following issues:
uuselecting the focus of a visit: the Subcommittee has recommended that NPMs develop criteria for
selecting the facilities to be visited, which will ensure that all such facilities are visited periodically;
these criteria should be based on the type and size of the institutions and the severity of the
human rights issues of which the NPMs are aware, while not excluding any types of institutions
or any geographical areas from the scope of their work;47
uuconducting private interviews;
uuidentifying and engaging with groups of detainees that may be at heightened risk (such as
members of ethnic minorities, indigenous persons, and LGBTI persons);
uuensuring that information from all available sources is collected in advance, during and after
their visits;
uucross-checking, testing and assessing observations and ensuring that recommendations are based
on rigorous analysis and are well grounded;
uuproviding feedback or debriefing with the representatives of places of detention at the end of
their visits; and
uumaintaining the confidentiality of interviews with detainees and of other sources of information.
These guidelines and policies should also provide guidance in response to individual cases of torture
and ill-treatment.
Methodology for conducting interviews
During interviews, the members of NPMs should introduce themselves to persons deprived of
their liberty and explain their mandate, placing particular emphasis on its preventive nature. The
interviewers should also obtain the consent of the interviewees and make it clear that the interviews
are confidential, voluntary and can be concluded at any time at the interviewees’ request.
Ideally, the interviewers would provide the interviewees with brochures describing the NPMs’
mandates and working methods, explaining the concept of informed consent and providing contact
information. They should also indicate that any form of reprisal could be reported to the NPMs.
46
CAT/OP/12/5, para. 33.
47
CAT/OP/HND/3, para. 18.

In this context, NPMs should develop codes of conduct for visiting teams that include the following:
uuaddressing detainees and staff;

uuobserving cultural and any other relevant sensitivities;
uuconducting individual or group interviews (including how and when to conduct such interviews);
uuhandling security and safety issues;
uuensuring confidentiality;
uumanaging internal debriefings in order to coordinate and cross-check data collected;
uuensuring that monitors do not exceed their mandate during the visit;
uuparticipating in reporting and follow-up;
uuclarifying the roles of external experts and other stakeholders participating in visits, including
their tasks, limitations, output, and responsibility for keeping information confidential.
Joint visits
The Subcommittee encourages synergies and collaboration between NPMs and other monitoring
mechanisms,48 as well as with CSOs, including the conduct of joint visits, when possible.49 Joint
visits to places of deprivation of liberty should not be undertaken with law enforcement agencies or
prosecutors’ offices, as they are incompatible with the need to ensure the functional independence of
NPMs from States bodies.
uuVisit reports
Visit reports should be produced following every visit conducted by the NPMs. These reports
should focus on prevention and identifying the concerns that exist, and proposing solutions in the
form of practical recommendations. The reports should be prepared as speedily as possible, thus
helping officials in charge of the institutions visited to make the connection between the visits and
the reports. With respect to their content, the reports should be written to enable readers, including
those unfamiliar with the institutions visited, to form a realistic picture of the situation. For example,
in the context of visits to prisons, the reports may describe the places visited, giving details of, for
example, the dimensions of cells, lighting, toilet facilities and ventilation, regime, and so forth.
Visit reports should focus on the most important issues, that is the reporting of torture and ill-
treatment, gaps in policies, regulations and practices, and the appropriateness of conditions under
which detainees are living, and should highlight any systematic lack of protection of detainees’
rights. Good practices should be noted and filed for systematic analysis. Cases of torture and
ill-treatment should be analysed to identify gaps in the protection of persons deprived of liberty.
CHECKLIST: ISSUES TO BE COVERED BY THE VISIT REPORTS
;; Concerns regarding the treatment of detainees, including cases of alleged torture and ill-
treatment
;; Gaps in policies, regulations and practices
;; Appropriateness of conditions of detention
;; Lack of protection of rights of detainees
;; Good practices
48
See, for example, SPT visit report Germany (CAT/OP/DEU/2), 29 October 2013, para. 21.
49
See, for example, SPT visit report Brazil (CAT/OP/BRA/3), 24 November 2016, para. 89.

The recommendations included in visit reports should propose practical and verifiable corrective
measures. Recommendations should be:
}} well-founded (based on international, regional and national norms and practices);
}} preventive (identifying and addressing systematic gaps and practices, including root causes);
}} feasible and practicable; and
}} focused, precise, and non-complex.
The visit reports should be submitted to the relevant authorities and other bodies concerned
(depending on the types of places of detention visited), published and disseminated. They should
also be shared with the facilities visited.
uuImplementing visit recommendations
NPMs should set up procedures for regular follow-up of their recommendations. According to the
OPCAT, competent State authorities shall examine the recommendations of NPMs and enter into
dialogue with them on possible implementation measures.50
The follow-up steps should include:
}} constructive dialogue with relevant authorities, including the directors or managers of the places
of detention and the supervising authorities of places visited, as well as other relevant institutions
(ministries, legislative bodies, health authorities, etc.);
}} regular monitoring of implementation of the recommendations;
}} follow-up visits and other engagements;
}} publication of thematic, visit and annual reports, which would provide information on the
implementation of recommendations;
}} dialogue and cooperation with relevant actors, national and international, including civil society.
NPMs should set up systems for following up their recommendations, which should be undertaken,
as far as possible, in conjunction with authorities and designated focal points in relevant ministries.
Ideally focal points would be identified in relevant ministries to follow up the NPMs’ recommendations
and to engage with them accordingly.
ÎÎADVISORY FUNCTIONS
In addition to formulating recommendations aimed at improving the treatment and conditions of
persons deprived of their liberty and preventing their torture and ill-treatment, NPMs exercise a more
general advisory function with regard to legislative and other proposals, opinions, recommendations
and reports on any issues within the mandate of the NPMs, including the review of rules and
instructions concerning the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty.
Legislative proposals
NPMs should have the power to make proposals and provide guidance on draft and existing legislation
in the light of the States’ obligations under the Optional Protocol, the Convention against Torture, and
other international human rights norms and standards. States parties should inform NPMs of any draft
legislation that may be under consideration, which is relevant to their mandates and allows the NPMs
to make proposals or observations on any existing or draft policies or legislation. NPMs should actively
seek development of procedures to ensure that they are systematically alerted to legislative proposals.
The State authorities shall examine any proposals or observations received from the NPMs. In the case
of federal States, these obligations would apply to all their constituent administrative units.
50

EXAMPLES OF NPM WORK REGARDING LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
The United Kingdom of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland NPM members work actively to
strengthen government policy relevant to the detention settings they monitor and to their own work
and mandate. For example, in 2016 the NPM submitted comments to the Law Commission’s
consultation on Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty.
For more information: Monitoring Places of Detention, Seventh Annual Report of the United
Kingdom National Preventive Mechanism51
In Hungary, the State has to submit to the National Preventive Mechanism, ex officio, all draft
bills relating to detention conditions during the preparatory stages of the legislative process. For
example, as regards the new Act on criminal proceedings, the NPM was able to submit a written
opinion and also to participate, on request, in the professional consultations on the Act. In 2016
the NPM was requested by State authorities to review 212 draft bills, including an amendment to
Act CCXL of 2013 on the execution of punishments, criminal measures, certain coercive measures
and confinement for administrative offences.
For more information: Comprehensive Report by the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights on the
activities of the OPCAT National Preventive Mechanism in 2016
Opinions, recommendations, proposals and reports
NPMs may submit to Governments, Parliaments and any other relevant authorities all opinions,
recommendations, proposals and reports on any matters concerning persons deprived of liberty and
any other issues within the mandates of the NPMs.
Review of detention rules, methods and practices
NPMs should systematically review rules on detention, such as interrogation rules, instructions,
methods and practices, and arrangements for the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty, with
a view to preventing torture or ill-treatment.
NPMs should examine rules and instructions issued concerning the duties and functions of personnel
involved in the custody, interrogation, placement and treatment of persons deprived of their liberty,
such as law enforcement personnel, civil or military personnel, medical personnel, other public
officials and employees in charge.
ÎÎCOOPERATIVE FUNCTIONS
NPMs should establish strategies for cooperation and communication with national, regional and
international actors on the prevention of torture, including implementation of the recommendations
of NPMs and on any urgent action procedures, including the follow-up of cases of suspected torture
and of possible reprisals.
These strategies should also cover the means of addressing and resolving any operational difficulties
encountered during the exercise of their mandates, including the visits, with respect to cooperation
and communication.
NPMs should consider establishing and maintaining contacts with other NPMs in their respective
regions, with a view to sharing experiences and reinforcing effectiveness.
51
See, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uks-national-preventive-mechanism-annual-report-2015-to-2016.

NPM NETWORKS
In 2013 NPMs in South-East Europe established a network for fostering greater cooperation,
exchanges of experience and other joint activities to enhance the effectiveness of NPMs in the
region. Representatives of the NPMs of Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Serbia and the
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (in the presence of and with the agreement of one of the
Ombudsmen from Bosnia and Herzegovina) adopted a Declaration on Cooperation and its initial
defined objectives. The network was later enlarged to include Austria, Bulgaria and Hungary. The
network also has thematic working groups, for example on legal and healthcare issues.
Other sub-regional networks for exchanging experience and fostering collaboration exist in the
Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark). The Swiss, German and Austrian
NPMs also have a network and meet annually.
EUROPEAN NPM PROJECT

A European NPM Project was set up in 2009 as a two-year joint project of the Council of
Europe and the European Union to promote peer-to-peer networks dedicated to NPM issues. The
objectives of the Project were (i) to create an active network of NPMs in Europe; (ii) to promote
cooperation between the SPT, the European Committee for Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) and NPMs, particularly in relation to standards and
working methods; and (iii) to promote ratification of the OPCAT and the establishment of OPCAT-
compliant NPMs where they did not exist. It also established a European NPM Newsletter, a bi-
monthly review of information relevant to the work NPMs in the Council of Europe region. Since
2016 the Newsletter has been produced by ACCESS.
NPMs should establish and maintain contact with the Subcommittee through regular meetings and
information exchanges. The Optional Protocol also requires the Subcommittee to maintain direct, and
if necessary confidential, contact with the NPMs and offer them training and technical assistance to
strengthen their capacity.52
CHECKLIST: THE RELEVANT ACTORS
;; State authorities (ministries, law enforcement personnel)

;; Professional groups (medical staff, journalists)
;; Parliament and the judiciary
;; CSOs/NGOs, especially those working with groups with heightened risks
;; Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture
;; Other regional torture prevention mechanisms, such as the Committee for the Prevention of
Torture of the Council of Europe (CPT) and the Committee for the Prevention of Torture in
Africa (CPTA)
;; Universities
;; Trade unions
;; Other NPMs
;; Other international and regional actors (such as the International Committee of the Red
Cross, the African Union, the Council of Europe, the European Union, the Organization of
American States, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the Arab League, and the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe)
52
Article 11 (b) (ii) of the Optional Protocol.

ÎÎEDUCATIONAL AND COMMUNICATION FUNCTIONS
The educational and communication function of NPMs includes educational, training and awareness-
raising programmes. NPMs should publicize their opinions, findings and other relevant information
to increase public awareness of the prevention of torture and ill-treatment.
NPMs should contribute, if possible, to informing all those in places of deprivation of liberty about
the Optional Protocol, the concept of prevention of torture and ill-treatment, the NPMs’ mandates,
and the corresponding obligations of the respective authorities, including the detention authorities.
In order to increase their institutional visibility, NPMs should develop strategies for making their
mandates and work known to the general public and develop simple, accessible procedures through
which the general public can provide them with relevant information. NPMs could, for example,
produce and distribute further material on their mandates and activities in various languages to
a wide range of audiences, including detention personnel, detainees, civil society at large, and
professional associations such as those of lawyers and the judiciary.
INTERACTIVE PROGRAMMES ON COMMUNITY RADIOS

A project by the Senegalese National Preventive Mechanism, supported by the OPCAT Special Fund
The National Preventive Mechanism, the National Observer of Places of Deprivation of Liberty
(ONLPL) and OHCHR hosted two interactive programmes on community radios on the theme
"National Observer of places of deprivation of liberty" in 2015 and 2016. During the broadcast,
interventions by the public included questions relating to the nature of the fundamental rights of
persons deprived of liberty as well as how they are guaranteed. ONLPL used this opportunity to
remind the public of the legal framework relating to police custody and to stress the absolute nature
of the prohibition of torture. In addition, the broadcast detailed the legal remedies available to
victims of torture. ONLPL also used the programme to highlight that the effectiveness of its mandate
depends on the ability to make unannounced visits without hindrance by the State authorities.
NPMs should assist schools, universities and professional bodies in:

uuformulating teaching programmes on the prohibition and prevention of torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
uucarrying out research; and
uutaking part in the delivery of educational programmes.
NPMs should examine the curricula of educational institutions for professionals who may be involved
in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any persons subjected to any form of detention, to ensure
that education and information on the prohibition of torture is fully included in the training.
CHECKLIST: THE RELEVANT PROFESSIONALS
;; Law enforcement personnel, civil or military

;; Medical personnel
;; Public officials
;; Judiciary
;; Members of Parliament
;; Professional associations (lawyers, judiciary)

Annual reports
NPMs should produce annual reports that include:

uuaccounts of current challenges to the protection of the rights of persons deprived of their liberty
and to the effective execution of the NPMs’ mandates, and strategic short-term and longer-term
plans, including with respect to the setting of priorities;
uuanalysis of the most important findings and recommendations and the responses to them by the
authorities and other addressees;
uufollow-up on issues from previously-published reports;
uuconsideration of thematic issues;
uuaccounts of cooperation with other actors on the prevention of torture;
uuan overview of all their other activities and outcomes; and
uuan overview of their structures and of the resources made available to them and spent.
The States parties to the Optional Protocol have a legal obligation to publish and widely disseminate
the annual reports of NPMs,53 which should be presented to and discussed in Parliament and
transmitted to the SPT.54
IMPLEMENTATION OF NPMS’ RECOMMENDATIONS

EXTRACT FROM THE SLOVENIAN NPM ANNUAL REPORT
“Implementing NPM recommendations is a commitment of the State Party to the Optional Protocol.
According to article 22 of the Optional Protocol, the competent authorities of the State Party must
address NPM recommendations and establish a dialogue with it on possible measures to realize
the recommendations. The success of implementing recommendations arising from NPM visits is
annually presented in the Ombudsman’s Annual Report and in a separate publication in the form of
a synthesis of our findings and recommendations and responses from the competent authorities in the
report to visits to individual institutions. Thus from a total of 600 recommendations issued by the NPM
after 67 visits in 2015, 211 have already been realized; 286 have been accepted, and 51 rejected,
and the institutions visited or ministries have not taken a position on 52 of these recommendations.”
RECOMMENDATIONS
INSTITUTIONS VISITED Number of Realised Accepted Rejected No data TOTAL
locations available
police stations 23 84 52 8 2 146
Aliens Centre 1 3 6 3 / 12
psychiatric hospitals 3 29 22 4 1 56
social care institutions 21 29 84 2 / 115
special social care institutions 5 15 25 10 37 87
prisons and the juvenile correctional facility 7+1 twice 45 59 15 / 119
residential treatment institutions 4 3 32 1 12 48
entry and reception centre for refugees/migrants 1 3 6 8 / 17
TOTAL 67 211 286 51 52 600
For more information: Annual Report of the National Preventive Mechanism for 2015.
53
54
The annual reports of the NPMs are available on the SPT website: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/OPCAT/
Pages/AnnualreportsreceivedfromNPM.aspx.

Thematic and visit reports
NPMs can establish policies on publicizing visit reports (or parts thereof), and thematic reports,
including the main findings and recommendations.
EXAMPLE OF AN NPM THEMATIC REPORT
In December 2016, the Norwegian NPM – the Parliamentary Ombudsman – published its first
thematic report under its OPCAT mandate, on “Women in prison”. The report is a summary of the
NPM’s findings on female inmates made during its visits to high security prisons between 2014
and 2016. The report addresses key issues relating to the conditions of women in prison, including
physical conditions, security, regime activities, health services and contact with families in Norway.
For more information: Norwegian Parliamentary Ombudsman Annual Report 2016.
Reports to/from human rights bodies
NPMs should contribute to the reports submitted by States to the United Nations55 Treaty Bodies
and regional bodies pursuant to the States’ reporting obligations under relevant treaties, and to
the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the Human Rights Council.56 NPMs can also submit their
own reports, expressing opinions on issues relevant to prevention of torture and ill-treatment, in
accordance with their independent status.
The Committee against Torture (CAT) receives information from NPMs at various stages of the
reporting process under the Convention against Torture and may meet with them during the session
at which it examines the report of the country concerned. Since 2015, the Committee has offered
NPMs the opportunity to attend private plenary meetings. NPMs can engage in the following stages
of the reporting process:
uusubmission of written information for the list of issues prior to reporting;

uusubmission of written information for the examination of the States parties’ reports;
uuparticipation in briefings and NPMs’ briefings with the Committee; and
uusubmission of written information concerning the follow-up to the recommendations made in the
Committee’s concluding observations.57
In addition to the Committee against Torture, NPMs can also engage in the reporting procedures of
other United Nations treaty bodies by submitting written information or participating in NGO/NHRI
briefings with them.58
55
Human Rights Committee (HRCttee), Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), Committee
against Torture (CAT), Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), Committee on the Elimination
of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Committee on
Migrant Workers (CMW), Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), Committee on Enforced
Disappearances (CED).
56
See, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/UPRMain.aspx.
57
More information about the procedure, deadlines and participation in the Committee’s sessions can be found on the
web page of the Committee against Torture: www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CAT/Pages/NGOsNHRIs.aspx.
58
More information about NGO and NHRI participation in the reporting process can be found on the OHCHR
website: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/Pages/TreatyBodies.aspx.

EXAMPLES OF NPM SUBMISSIONS TO THE UNITED NATIONS TREATY BODIES
Submission by the Norwegian NPM of supplementary information to the Committee on the

Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) Pre-Sessional Working Group
in March, in relation to Norway’s 9th Periodic Report and the examination of Norway by CEDAW
in October 2017:
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CEDAW/Shared%20Documents/NOR/INT_CEDAW_IFN_
NOR_26505_E.pdf.
Submission by the NPM of Switzerland (Commission nationale de prévention de la torture) to the
Committee against Torture (CAT) in relation to Switzerland’s 7th periodic report in March 2015:
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2fCAT
%2fNHS%2fCHE%2f21161&Lang=en.
Submission by the NPM of Paraguay (Mecanismo nacional de prevención de la tortura) to the
Committee against Torture (CAT) in relation to Paraguay’s 7th periodic report in August 2017:
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/SessionDetails1.
aspx?SessionID=1132&Lang=en.
NPMs should promote and follow up on recommendations from the United Nations and regional
bodies, relevant to their mandate, at the national level.
Public awareness
As observed, NPMs should develop strategies for making their mandates and work known to the public
in order to ensure public understanding of their roles and responsibilities, and emphasize their preventive
focus (see example of interactive programmes on community radios, in the text box on page 30).
NPMs should also establish simple, accessible and confidential procedures through which the public
might provide them with relevant information.
The strategies of NPMs have included the conduct of public campaigns, production of promotional
materials and the development of web pages.
© UN/OHCHR Photo

EXAMPLES OF NPMs’ NATIONAL PUBLIC AWARENESS ACTIVITIES ON THE OCCASION
OF THE OPCAT’s TENTH ANNIVERSARY (2016)
Torture in Costa Rica? Myths and Realities was a high-level forum held in collaboration with the
NPM in June 2016 in Costa Rica. The Forum generated an important discussion addressing the
subject of torture and ill-treatment in Costa Rica.
The Croatian NPM, in collaboration with the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights (BIM),
hosted a conference within the framework of the South-East Europe NPM Network to discuss the
revised UN Standard Minimum Rules for the treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), the
follow-up of NPM recommendations, and the role of monitoring bodies in the “refugee crisis” (29-
30 November 2016).
The National Agency for the Prevention of Torture in Germany issued a press release on 22 June
2016, and participated in the Association for Prevention of Torture’s campaign highlighting the
positive changes that the OPCAT and the work of NPMs have achieved. The National Agency
organized an international workshop on the significance and development of the OPCAT and
the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in relation to persons with psychosocial
disabilities (2 December 2016, Berlin).
In Norway the NPM participated in a human rights seminar on the legal safeguards and guarantees
in psychiatric health care (19 October 2016, Oslo) to help create a new and positive dynamic
relating to the consideration of this subject-area in Norway.
In Serbia the NPM held a press conference on “UN OPCAT: 10 years of prevention of torture and
ill-treatment” (27 October 2016). The press conference highlighted the importance of the OPCAT,
the SPT and NPMs in the prevention and eradication of torture, and the need to strengthen the
organizational, functional and financial independence of the Serbian NPM and the continued
participation of civil society and external experts in its work.
In Tunisia, l’Organisation contre la torture en Tunisie (OCTT) placed a tent in Habib Bourguiba
Avenue, in Tunis, to directly engage with people and distributed documents relating to the prevention
of torture and the OPCAT. Arabic radio stations broadcasted information on the OPCAT.
ÎÎTECHNICAL ASSISTANCE – THE OPCAT SPECIAL FUND
Requesting technical assistance
The States parties to the Optional Protocol can seek technical assistance from OHCHR for establishing
or strengthening their NPMs. They can request assistance through OHCHR field presences or the
OHCHR Treaty Body Capacity Building Programme,59 or submit a proposal for a grant to the Special
Fund of the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture (“OPCAT Special Fund”).
The OPCAT Special Fund was established pursuant to article 26 of the Optional Protocol to the United
Nations Convention against Torture in 2011. The Special Fund supports projects implementing
recommendations of the SPT contained in the SPT public visit reports, which focus on the establishment
or strengthening of NPMs.
59
For questions relating to the Fund, contact should be made with opcatfund@ohchr.org.

As of 2017, the projects supported by the Special Fund should focus on the establish-
ment and effective functioning of NPMs.
Applications to the Special Fund may be submitted by institutions of States parties to the Optional Protocol,
which have been visited by the Subcommittee and their NPMs, and which have agreed to the publication
of the Subcommittee’s visit report.60 Applications may also be submitted by NHRIs that comply with the
Paris Principles and by NGOs, provided that the proposed projects are implemented in cooperation with
eligible States parties or NPMs.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR A GRANT UNDER THE OPCAT SPECIAL FUND

uuProject proposal implements SPT recommendations contained in the visit report
uuThe SPT visit report is published
uuProject proposal focuses on the establishment and/or strengthening of NPMs
ELIGIBLE ENTITIES
uuState authorities
uuNPMs
uuNHRIs
uuNGOs and CSOs
• NGOs and CSOs must have an agreement with the authorities entrusted with the
implementation of SPT recommendations in the countries concerned
More information on the Fund and on the Call for Applications is available at http://www.ohchr.org/
opcatfund.
Results achieved
The projects supported by the Fund have been instrumental in implementing the Subcommittee’s
recommendations. Since its first call for applications in 2012, the Special Fund has provided grants
for more than 47 technical cooperation projects in 13 countries worldwide. These projects resulted
in legislative changes, for example bringing laws in line with international human rights standards on
torture prevention (including revised codes of criminal procedure, prison acts and laws prohibiting
abusive body searches on persons deprived of their liberty), as well as laws to establish NPMs
on torture. They also supported institutional changes, such as establishing or strengthening the
effective functioning of NPMs on torture or other relevant institutions, establishment of registers of
detainees, and operational changes resulting from the enhanced knowledge and skills of judicial,
law enforcement and medical personnel. Finally, they resulted in changes in people’s lives including,
in one case, a reported decrease in violence against children in detention facilities. The projects
also contributed, by developing and distributing manuals, to increasing the awareness of persons
deprived of their liberty in relation to their rights.
The Special Fund has proven to be a unique tool for supporting implementation of SPT recommendations.
It can also serve as an incentive for the publication of the Subcommittee’s visit reports and for
enhancing the transparency and efficiency of torture prevention.
60
The SPT visit reports are available on the SPT web page: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/TreatyBodyExternal/
CountryVisits.aspx?SortOrder=Chronological.

The Fund relies entirely on voluntary contributions from Governments, intergovernmental or non-
governmental organizations, private sector organizations and the public at large. Demand for
support from the Fund is expected to grow with the increase in frequency of SPT visits.
The minimum sum required on an annual basis to guarantee a functioning Fund designed to support
an average of 20 projects per year, with a reasonable level of funding per project (up to US$20,000),
is approximately US$500,000. Contributions are therefore required to sustain and consolidate the
Fund, in order to enable the Fund to engage with States and provide them with the technical assistance
for implementing activities aimed at preventing torture.
States and other donors can support torture prevention activities through their contributions to the
OPCAT Special Fund and, in so doing, sustain projects addressing real gaps and needs in torture
prevention. Information on how to contribute to the Fund is contained in the Annex 6 of the Guide.61
For questions relating to the Fund, contact should be made with opcatfund@ohchr.org.
The United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture (UNVFVT)
While the OPCAT Special Fund provides technical assistance for torture prevention projects,
the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture provides direct assistance to victims of
torture and their family members. It aims at healing the physical and psychological consequences
of torture on victims and their families, and thus restoring their dignity and role in society.
Many civil society organizations supported by UNVFVT, which are helping victims to claim their
right to redress, have developed professional skills for identifying and documenting torture. Many
of these organizations, including rehabilitation centres and medical facilities, cooperate with
NPMs on the ground, including in the sharing of expertise and specialized skills that are essential
both for the prevention of torture and for the rehabilitation of its victims.
Both Funds, the UNVFVT and the OPCAT Special Fund, encourage such collaboration since
prevention and assistance to victims are two sides of the same coin.
© UN/OHCHR Burundi Photo
61
Information is also available on the OPCAT Special Fund web page:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/OPCAT/Fund/Pages/Contribute.aspx.

ANNEXES
ANNEX 1:
SAMPLE RESOURCES AND TOOLS
ÎÎRESOURCES:
uuOptional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment
uuSPT guidelines on National Preventive Mechanisms (CAT /OP/12/5)
uuThe compilation of SPT advice to NPMs, as set out in the annex to its 9th Annual Report
(CAT/C/57/4)
uuGuidelines against Intimidation or Reprisals (“San José Guidelines”)
uuThe Policy of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment on reprisals in relation to its visiting mandate (CAT/OP/6/Rev.1)
uuManual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“Istanbul Protocol”)
uuPrinciples relating to the Status of National Institutions (“The Paris Principles”)
uuUnited Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners (“The Nelson Mandela Rules”)
uuUnited Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (“The Beijing
Rules”)
uuUnited Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (“The Havana Rules”)
uuUnited Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (“The Tokyo Rules”)
ÎÎTOOLS:
uuSPT analytical assessment tool for National Preventive Mechanisms (CAT/OP/1/Rev.1)
uuNPM assessment matrix for NPMs
uuNon-exhaustive list of illustrative questions for interviews with persons deprived of liberty in
police stations/prisons
uuGuide to the establishment and designation of NPMs (APT, 2006)
uuHuman Rights and Prisons: Manual on Human Rights Training for Prison Officials (OHCHR, 2005)
uuInitial guidance on the interpretation and implementation of the UN Nelson Mandela Rules,
Essex Paper 3 (Penal Reform International, 2016)
uuMonitoring Police Custody: A Practical Guide (APT, 2013)
uuMonitoring Places of Detention: A Practical Guide (APT, 2004)
uuMonitoring Immigration Detention: A Practical Manual (APT, 2014)
uuNational Human Rights Institutions as NPMs: Opportunities and Challenges (APT, 2013)
uuMembership of National Preventive Mechanisms: Standards and Experiences (APT, 2013)
uuNational Preventive Mechanisms - Drafting Effective Annual Reports: Briefing paper (APT, 2012)
uuWorkbook on Women in Detention: Putting the UN Bangkok Rules on Women Prisoners into
Practice (Penal Reform International, 2017)
uuPractical Guide: Monitoring Places where Children are Deprived of Liberty (Defence for Children
International Belgium, 2016)
uuUNODC Handbook for Prisons Leaders (United Nations, 2010)
uuUNODC Handbook on Women and Imprisonment (United Nations, 2014)
uuUNODC: Assessing Compliance with the Nelson Mandela Rules: A Checklist for Internal
Inspection Mechanisms (United Nations, 2017)
ANNEXES I 39
ANNEX 2:
SPT GUIDELINES ON NATIONAL
PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS
ÎÎIntroduction
1. The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (the “Optional Protocol”) provides considerable detailed guidance
concerning the establishment of a National Preventive Mechanism (“NPM”), including its mandate
and powers. The most relevant of these provisions are Articles 3, 4, 17-23, 29 and 35, although
other provisions of the Optional Protocol are also of importance for NPMs. It is axiomatic that all
NPMs must be structured in a manner which fully reflects these provisions.
2. It is the responsibility of the State to ensure that it has in place an NPM which complies with the
requirements of the Optional Protocol. For its part, the SPT works with those bodies which it has
been informed have been designated by the State as its NPM. Whilst the SPT does not, nor intends
to, formally assess the extent to which NPMs conform to OPCAT requirements, it does consider it
a vital part of its role to advise and assist States and NPMs in fulfilling their obligations under the
Optional Protocol. To this end the SPT previously set out ‘Preliminary Guidelines’ concerning the
ongoing development of NPMs in its First Annual Report. It had the occasion to further amplify its
thinking in subsequent Annual Reports and also in a number of recommendations set out in its visit
reports. In the light of the experience it has gained, the SPT believes it would be useful to issue a
revised set of Guidelines on National Preventive Mechanisms which reflect and respond to some
of the questions and issues which have arisen in practice.
3. These Guidelines do not seek to repeat what is set out in the text of the Optional Protocol but
to add further clarity regarding the expectations of the SPT regarding the establishment and
operation of NPMs. Section I sets out a number of ‘basic principles’ which should inform all
aspects of the work of an NPM. This is followed in Section II by guidelines addressed primarily
to States on a number of issues relating to the establishment of NPMs, while Section III contains
guidelines for both the State and the NPM itself on the practical functioning of an NPM.
4. As it gains further experience the SPT will seek to expand these Guidelines, addressing particular
aspects of the work of NPMs in greater detail.
I. Basic principles
5. An NPM should complement rather than replace existing systems of oversight, and its establishment
should not preclude the creation or operation of other such complementary systems.
6. The mandate and powers of an NPM should be in accordance with the provisions of the Optional
Protocol.
7. The mandate and powers of an NPM should be clearly set out in a constitutional or legislative text.
8. The operational independence of an NPM should be guaranteed.
9. The relevant legislation should specify the period of office of the member(s) of an NPM and any
grounds for their dismissal. Periods of office, which may be renewable, should be sufficient to
foster the independent functioning of the NPM.
10. The visiting mandate of an NPM should extend to all places of deprivation of liberty, as set out in
11. The necessary resources should be provided to permit the effective operation of an NPM in
accordance with the requirements of the Optional Protocol.
12. An NPM should enjoy complete financial and operational autonomy when carrying out its
functions under the Optional Protocol.
13. The State authorities and the NPM should enter into a follow-up process with a view to
implementation of any recommendations which the NPM may make.
14. Those who are involved, or with whom an NPM is involved, in the fulfilment of its functions under
the Optional Protocol should not be subject to any form of sanction, reprisal or other restriction as
result of having done so.

15. The effective operation of an NPM is a continuing obligation. The effectiveness of the NPM should
be subject to regular appraisal by both the State and the NPM itself - taking into account the
views of the SPT - with a view to its being reinforced and strengthened as and when necessary.
ÎÎII. Basic issues regarding the establishment of an NPM

A. The identification or creation of the NPM
16. An NPM should be identified through an open, transparent and inclusive process involving a
wide range of stakeholders, including Civil Society. This should also apply to the process for
the selection and appointment of members of the NPM, which should be in accordance with
published criteria.
17. Bearing in mind the requirements of Articles 18 (1) and (2) of the Optional Protocol, members of an
NPM should collectively have the expertise and experience necessary for its effective functioning.
18. The State should ensure the independence of an NPM by not appointing to it members who hold
positions which could raise questions of conflicts of interest.
19. Members of NPMs should likewise ensure that they do not hold or acquire positions which raise
questions of conflict of interest.
20. Recalling the requirements of Articles 18 (1) and (2) of the Optional Protocol, an NPM should
ensure that its staff have between them the diversity of background, capabilities and professional
knowledge necessary to enable it to properly fulfil its NPM mandate. This should include, inter alia,
relevant legal and healthcare expertise.
B. Designation and notification

21. An NPM should be established within one year of the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for
the State concerned, unless at the time of ratification a declaration has been made in accordance
with Article 24 of the Optional Protocol.
22. The body designated as an NPM should be publicly promulgated as such at national level.
23. The State should notify the SPT promptly of the body which has been designated as an NPM.
ÎÎIII. Basic issues regarding the operation of an NPM

A. Points for States
24. The State should allow the NPM to visit all, and any suspected, places of deprivation of liberty,
as set out in Articles 4 and 29 of the Optional Protocol, which are within its jurisdiction. For these
purposes the jurisdiction of the State extends to all those places over which it exercises effective
control.
25. The State should ensure that the NPM is able to carry out visits in the manner and with the
frequency that the NPM itself decides on. This includes the ability to conduct private interviews
with those deprived of liberty and the right to carry out unannounced visits at all times to all places
of deprivation of liberty, in accordance with the provisions of the Optional Protocol.
26. The State should ensure that both the members of the NPM and its staff enjoy such privileges and
immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions.
27. The State should not order, apply, permit or tolerate any sanction, reprisal or other restriction
imposed on any person or organization for having communicated with the NPM or for having
provided the NPM with any information, irrespective of its accuracy, and no such person or
organization should be prejudiced in any way.
28. The State should inform the NPM of any draft legislation that may be under consideration and which is
relevant to its mandate; and it should allow the NPM to make proposals or observations on any existing
or draft policy or legislation. The State should take into consideration any proposals or observations on
such legislation received from the NPM.
29. The State should publish and widely disseminate the Annual Reports of the NPM. It should also
ensure that it is presented to, and discussed in, the national legislative assembly or Parliament.
The Annual Reports of the NPM should also be transmitted to the SPT which will arrange for their
publication on its website.
ANNEXES I 41
B. Points for NPMs
30. An NPM should carry out all aspects of its mandate in a manner which avoids actual or perceived
conflicts of interest.
31. An NPM, its members and its staff should be regularly required to review their working methods
and undertake training in order to enhance their ability to exercise their responsibilities under the
Optional Protocol.
32. Where the body designated as an NPM performs other functions in addition to those under the
Optional Protocol, its NPM functions should be located within a separate unit or department, with
its own staff and budget.
33. An NPM should establish a work plan or programme which, over time, encompasses visits to all,
or any, suspected places of deprivation of liberty, as set out in Articles 4 and 29 of the Optional
Protocol, and which are within the jurisdiction of the State. For these purposes the jurisdiction of
the State extends to all those places over which it exercises effective control.
34. An NPM should plan its work and its use of resources in such a way as to ensure that places
of deprivation of liberty are visited in a manner and with sufficient frequency that ensures an
effective contribution to the prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment.
35. An NPM should make proposals and observations to the relevant State authorities regarding
existing and draft policy or legislation which it considers to be relevant to its mandate.
36. An NPM should produce a report following each visit as well as an Annual Report and any other
form of report that it deems necessary. When appropriate, reports should contain recommendations
addressed to the relevant authorities. The recommendations of an NPM should take account of the
relevant norms of the United Nations in the field of the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment,
including the comments and recommendations of the SPT.
37. An NPM should ensure that any confidential information acquired in the course of its work is fully
protected.
38. An NPM should ensure that it has the capacity to engage - and does engage - in a meaningful
process of dialogue with the State concerning the implementation of its recommendations. It
should also actively seek to follow-up implementation of any recommendations which the SPT has
made in relation to the country in question, liaising with the SPT when doing so.
39. An NPM should seek to establish and maintain contacts with other NPMs with a view to sharing
experience and reinforcing its effectiveness.
40. The NPM should seek to establish and maintain contact with the SPT, as provided for and for the
purposes set out in the Optional Protocol.

ANNEX 3:
NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF ILLUSTRATIVE
QUESTIONS FOR INTERVIEWS WITH
PERSONS DEPRIVED OF LIBERTY IN
POLICE STATIONS/PRISONS
ÎÎBackground to the arrest
Describe the circumstances of the arrest:
uuWhen and where did it take place?
uuWho made the arrest? How many persons were involved? Were they in uniform? Were they
police officers, military or personnel of some other description?
uuDid they handcuff you?
uuDid they tell you why you were being arrested?
uuDid they inform you about your rights and, if so, which rights?
uuDid they take you straight to the police station? How did they take you here?
ÎÎArrival at the police station/prison

uuWhen did you reach the police station/prison?
uuWhere were you taken on arrival? (to an office, a cell, etc.)
uuWith whom did you speak when you arrived?
uuWere you informed of your rights? If so, which rights?
uuDid you sign a document of any kind? Did you make any confession, orally or in writing?
uuWere you questioned? If so, by whom?
uuWere you able to contact a family member? - or a lawyer?
uuWere you taken to a doctor? Were you medically examined?
uuWere you brought before a magistrate or judge?
uuHow were you treated while being arrested, questioned or held at the police station/prison? If
you were ill-treated, did you report it? To whom? What was the outcome?
ÎÎConditions of detention (police station and prison)

uuHow long did you spend in the cell?
uuDid you share the cell with anyone else? If so, with how many others?
uuWere men held separately from women? Were adults held separately from children?
uuDid you receive food and water? How many times?
uuWhere was the toilet? What were the arrangements for going there?
uuWhere did you wash?
ÎÎOther questions
uuWere you subjected to any disciplinary punishment (if so, please describe)?
uuWhat was your daily programme? How much time did you spend outside the cell/for sport/
leisure activities, etc.?
uuCould you maintain contact with your family (how, with what frequency)?
ANNEXES I 43
ANNEX 4:
SPT ANALYTICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR
NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS
ÎÎI. Introduction
1. Pursuant to article 2 (1) of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, a State party is obliged to take effective legislative, administrative, judicial
or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. In this framework
States parties are obliged to ensure that education and information on the prohibition against torture
is fully included in the training of all personnel who may be involved in depriving persons of their
liberty.1 The prohibition of torture should be included in the working regulations of such personnel,
and all methods of and processes for taking the liberty and freedom of a person should be reviewed
systematically.2 The same principles apply to other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.3
2. In the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment it is stressed that effective prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment requires education and a combination of various legislative,
administrative, judicial and other measures. As one means of prevention, the Optional Protocol
establishes asystem of regular visits to all places of detention.
3. It is the responsibility of the State party to ensure that it has in place a national preventive mechanism
that complies with the requirements of the Optional Protocol (see CAT/OP/12/5, para. 2). Preventive
work should be carried out by that mechanism, with its main task to visit places of detention in order
to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.4 The State party
shall guarantee the organizational and functional independence of the mechanism and provide it
with the resources necessary to enable it to carry out its functions in accordance with the requirements
of the Optional Protocol. It shall, however, refrain from supervising the mechanism.
4. A national preventive mechanism should have the capacity to operate in conformity with the principles
relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (the Paris
Principles).5
5. The development of National Preventive Mechanisms should be considered an ongoing obligation,
with formal aspects reinforced and working methods refined and improved incrementally (see
CAT/C/40/2 and Corr.1, para. 28 (n)). Once such a mechanism is established, the Subcommittee
on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment shall
maintain direct and, if necessary, confidential contact with the mechanism and offer it training and
technical assistance with a view to strengthening its capacities. Upon request from a State party and/
or a national preventive mechanism, the Subcommittee will offer further advice and assistance to the
mechanism in the evaluation of its needs and the means necessary to strengthen the protection of
persons deprived of their liberty against torture and ill-treatment. In order to fulfil this advisory function
usefully, the Subcommittee must have formed a view about the manner in which the mechanism is
addressing core areas of its mandate. For this purpose the Subcommittee has prepared guidelines on
National Preventive Mechanisms (CAT/OP/12/5).
6. In order to facilitate self-evaluation of mandated activities, the Subcommittee has prepared the present
document, which reflects the principles set out in previously issued documents and guidelines and the
prevailing thinking in the field. The Subcommittee urges existing National Preventive Mechanisms and
States parties to carry out self-evaluations systematically and periodically and improve their activities
to bring them into line with the guidance compiled in the present tool. In addition, National Preventive
1
Article 10 (1) of the Convention.
2
Articles 10 (2) and 11 of the Convention.
3
Article 16 (1) of the Convention.
4
5

Mechanisms that have been designated but are not yet operational, as well as States parties in the
process of ratifying the Optional Protocol and creating such mechanisms, are encouraged to use the
present tool and the matrix based thereon for guidance.
ÎÎII. Mandate of the National Preventive Mechanism

7. The effective prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
requires education and a combination of various legislative, administrative, judicial and other
measures, as stated in the preamble of the Optional Protocol.
8. The major function of a national preventive mechanism in discharging its preventive role is to carry
out visits, which may be unannounced, to places of detention.6 The purpose of such visits is to
regularly examine the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in places of detention with a view
to strengthening, if necessary, their protection against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.7
9. In addition to conducting visits, the mandate of a national preventive mechanism should include the
following activities:
(a) Making recommendations to the relevant authorities, with the aim of improving the treatment and
conditions of persons deprived of their liberty and preventing torture and other cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment of those persons,8 and engaging in a meaningful process
of dialogue with the State party responsible and any other relevant stakeholders concerning the
implementation of any recommendations made (see CAT/OP/12/5, para. 38);
(b) Publicizing its opinions, findings and other relevant information in order to increase public
awareness, especially through education and by making use of a broad range of media;9
(c) Submitting proposals and observations concerning existing or draft legislation10 and relevant
human rights action plans, and submitting to the Government, the parliament and any other
competent body on an advisory basis, either at the request of the authorities concerned or through
the exercise of the mechanism’s powers under the Optional Protocol, opinions, recommendations,
proposals and reports on any matters concerning the situation of detainees and any other issues
within the mandate of the mechanism;11
(d) Performing systematic reviews of interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices and of
arrangements for the detention and treatment of persons subjected to any form of detention in
any territory under a State party’s jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture;12
(e) Examining rules or instructions issued in regard to the duties and functions of law enforcement
personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be
involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of
detention in order to verify conformity with the Convention, the Optional Protocol and other
human rights instruments;13
(f) Assisting in the formulation of programmes for the teaching of the prohibition and prevention of
torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and carrying out research
into human rights and, where appropriate, taking part in the execution of such programmes and
research in schools, universities and professional circles;14
(g) Examining the curricula of education institutions to ensure that education and information
regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement
personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be
6
Articles 1 and 19 (a) of the Optional Protocol.
7
8
Article 19 (b) of the Optional Protocol.
9
Paris Principles.
10
Article 19 (c) of the Optional Protocol; see also CAT/OP/12/5, para. 35.
11
Paris Principles.
12
Article 11 of the Convention against Torture.
13
Article 10 (2) of the Convention against Torture.
14
Paris Principles.
ANNEXES I 45
involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of
detention;15
(h) Either contributing to the reports that States parties are required to submit to United Nations bodies
and committees and to regional institutions, pursuant to their treaty obligations, or presenting its
own reports and, where necessary, expressing an opinion on the subject, in accordance with its
independent status;16
(i) Following up on the process of implementation of recommendations made by United Nations and
regional bodies to the States parties with regard to torture and related issues, providing advice
at the national level and providing the recommending bodies with information, as appropriate;
(j) Considering establishing and maintaining contacts with other National Preventive Mechanisms
with a view to sharing experiences and reinforcing effectiveness (see CAT/OP/12/5, para. 6);
(k) Establishing and maintaining contact with the Subcommittee by regularly exchanging information
and meeting with it.17
ÎÎIII. Organization of the national preventive mechanism

10. The national preventive mechanism is to be given a preventive mandate and powers in accordance
with the Optional Protocol, which is to be clearly set forth in a new or existing constitutional or
legislative text specifying the composition of the mechanism and its sphere of competence.18 Such
legislation should extend the visiting mandate to all places where people are or may be deprived of
their liberty, as set out in article 4 of the Optional Protocol (see CAT/OP/12/5, para. 10).
11. The relevant legislation should specify the period of office, whether determined or open-ended, of the
members of the national preventive mechanism and any grounds for their dismissal (ibid., para. 9).
In addition, the legal basis should guarantee that the members of the national preventive mechanism
and its staff enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of
their functions, and should address the issue of reprisals and other such actions against members of
the mechanism, their partners and any person who has communicated with the mechanism.19
12. The legislative text should grant the national preventive mechanism at minimum:20
(a) The power to freely select the places of deprivation of liberty in which visits are to be carried out;
to regularly examine the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in those places; to select
the timing of such visits and determine whether they are to be announced or unannounced; and
to choose the persons to be interviewed;
(b) Access to all information, including personal and sensitive information, premises and persons
necessary for pursuing its mandate;
(c) The power to make recommendations to the relevant authorities;
(d) The power to submit proposals and observations concerning existing or draft legislation;
(e) The right to have contact with the Subcommittee.
13. Bearing in mind the requirements of article 18 (1) and (2) of the Optional Protocol, members of
the national preventive mechanism should be selected through an open, transparent and inclusive
process and collectively have the expertise and experience necessary for the effective functioning
of the mechanism. The selection process should preferably be prescribed in the governing national
preventive mechanism legislation. The mechanism should ensure that its team has the diversity of
background, for example in respect to gender balance and representation of minorities, capabilities
and professional knowledge, necessary to enable it to properly fulfil its mandate (see CAT/OP/12/5,
paras. 17 and 20). In its activities the mechanism should also take benefit from cooperation with civil
society, universities and qualified experts, Parliament and government departments, among others.21
15
Article 10 (1) of the Convention against Torture.
16
Paris Principles.
17
Article 20 (f) of the Optional Protocol.
18
Paris Principles and CAT/OP/12/5, para. 7
19
See article 21 (1) of the Optional Protocol and CAT/OP/12/5, paras. 26-27.
20
Articles 19 and 20 of the Optional Protocol.
21
Paris Principles.

Special attention should be paid to developing relations with civil society members dedicated to
working with vulnerable groups.22
14. Where an organization designated as the national preventive mechanism performs other functions
in addition to those under the Optional Protocol, the national preventive mechanism functions should
be located within a separate unit or department with its own staff and a separate budget (see CAT/
OP/12/15, para. 32). The relationship between the national preventive mechanism function and
the rest of the organization, the working methods and the safeguards applicable to preserve the
independence of that function should be clearly set out in the relevant internal regulations.
15. States parties should make available the resources necessary for the effective functioning of National
Preventive Mechanisms.23 A national preventive mechanism should prioritize its own use of resources
on the basis of a regular analysis of its practice and experience and in the light of its evaluation of its
needs and the means necessary for it to exercise its mandate appropriately. The mechanism should
advocate for the provision of the resources necessary for the effective exercise of its mandate, with
the assistance of the Subcommittee and/or other relevant actors if necessary.
16. To ensure coherent and transparent functioning, National Preventive Mechanisms should develop
policies and rules of procedure for, inter alia:
(a) Organization of the office, its work and budgets for all activities described in paragraph 9 of the
present tool;
(b) Procedures for decision-making;
(c) Employment and dismissal of staff;
(d) Prevention of conflicts of interest;
(e) Employment of external experts, establishing necessary qualifications and terms of reference for
their work;
(f) Sharing of information within the mechanism;
(g) Communication with other national and international actors, including the Subcommittee, and the
press;
(h) Data protection and issues of confidentiality.
ÎÎIV. Working strategy of the national preventive mechanism

17. Given the nature of its work, it is almost inevitable that a national preventive mechanism will face
challenges such as a reluctance within bureaucracies to change structures and practices, a lack of
resources to implement recommendations and other initiatives, and, occasionally, negative public
opinion. Some of those challenges will be outside the control of the mechanism and, to some extent,
the relevant authorities with whom the mechanism engages. In such situations the mechanism should
nevertheless try to find and put forward creative solutions that might address an issue over time
in an incremental fashion. It should consider forming partnerships with national and international
actors in order to raise awareness of the obligations of the States parties among decision makers
and the general public in order to encourage and facilitate change in legislation, policies made by
authorities, general attitudes, and conditions and practices in places of detention.
18. The national preventive mechanism should develop concrete long- and short-term strategies in order
to achieve the maximum impact on problems and challenges relevant to its mandate in the local
context. Activities and their outcomes should be monitored and assessed on an ongoing basis and
the lessons learned should be used to develop the practices of the mechanism. Such an assessment
could be based on a framework, starting with existing challenges, such as resourcing issues, and an
assessment of activities currently being undertaken, moving through a range of additional factors and
activities, such as:
(a) Criteria for the selection of planned activities;
(b) Criteria for the composition of working groups and visiting and outreach teams, among others,
including the involvement of specific forms of professional expertise or other input from national/
international stakeholders;
(c) Analysis of problems and challenges, and of good practices that have been identified;
22
Ibid.
23
ANNEXES I 47
(d) Cooperation with other actors;
(e) Resources budgeted;
(f) Strategies and working methods to be adopted when implementing activities;
(g) Recommendations submitted to authorities;
(h) Follow-up action and an assessment of the implementation of recommendations, including
dialogue with authorities;
(i) Systematization of observations, recommendations issued and the responses received from
authorities, including information on implementation, as well as analysis of how and why
successes and failures in effective change have occurred;
(j) A description of all other national preventive mechanism activities in addition to visiting, output
and impact assessments;
(k) Resources spent;
(l) Consideration of the need to develop alternative strategies or approaches.
19. Working strategies are subject to periodic evaluation and improvement. A national preventive
mechanism might wish to include its partners in reviewing and taking stock of its activities. It may
also wish to seek input from international stakeholders, such as the Subcommittee.
20. The work of the mechanism should be understood as an ongoing, context-based process of development
that takes into account not only the experience of the mechanism itself but also information and advice
from and the experience of other relevant and reliable sources. Members, staff, external experts and
other potential contributors should receive ongoing training on mechanism activities and torture
prevention, including on methodological, strategic and ethical issues, and should participate in the
development of working methods. The involvement of the Subcommittee in such capacity-building
activities could be beneficial.
ÎÎV. Implementation of visiting activities

A. Planning
21. In the framework of its visiting activities the national preventive mechanism should actively seek information
in order to ensure that it has data and background information for all places of detention and should keep
an archive of all relevant information about places of detention and the treatment of persons held there.
22. The mechanism should ensure that it has criteria for selecting the places to be visited and for deciding
on thematic visits that ensure that all places of detention are visited regularly, taking into account the
type and size of institutions, their security level and the nature of known human rights problems, while
leaving room for flexibility in the allocation of resources to ensure that follow-up and urgent visits can
be undertaken. Such criteria should be transparent, clear and published.
23. The composition of a visiting team should take into account the necessary knowledge, including with
respect to languages, groups with special needs and vulnerable groups, the experience and skills of
members, gender balance and the adequate representation of ethnic and minority groups. The team
should have sufficient human and technical resources and time to enable it to properly carry out its tasks.
B. Visit methodology
24. On an ongoing basis, a national preventive mechanism should develop guidelines for visits to the
various categories of places of detention, including instructions for selecting the theme of a visit,
for conducting private interviews, for developing policies for dealing with vulnerable groups of
detainees and for ensuring that information from all available sources, such as the administration and
staff of the institution visited, detainees from all areas and units, other visitors, if appropriate, and
outside actors, such as civil society and other monitoring mechanisms, is collected.
25. All facilities within institutions should be visited and existing registries, examples of case records and
activities and services for the detainees should be assessed, unless the visit is thematic only. If a visit
is thematic, its coverage of the facilities can be only partial.
26. Practices and tools should be developed to cross-check, test and assess observations and to ensure
that recommendations are based on rigorous analysis and are factually well grounded (see CAT/
OP/12/6, para. 5 (f)). The national preventive mechanism should put in place an effective data
management system.

27. There should be a policy that provides for an immediate debriefing with the representatives of the
place of detention at the end of a visit.
28. The mechanism should consider developing a code of conduct for visiting teams, covering, among
other things, addressing detainees and staff, observing cultural and any other relevant sensitivities,
conducting individual or group interviews, including how and when to conduct such interviews,
handling security and safety issues, ensuring confidentiality, managing internal debriefings in order
to coordinate and cross-check data collected and prepare for the closing of the visit, ensuring that the
visitors do not step outside or in any other way exceed the mandate of the mechanism during a visit,
and participating in reporting and follow-up.
29. The national preventive mechanism should have clear guidelines for reporting individual cases of
deliberate ill-treatment and requesting inquiries, as well as for maintaining the confidentiality of
the detainee concerned and any other source of relevant information and protecting such persons
against reprisals.
C. Visit reports
30. Visit reports should focus on the most important issues, that is, the reporting of ill- treatment, gaps
in policies, regulations and practices, and the appropriateness of conditions under which detainees
are living, and should reflect any systematic lack of protection of the rights of detainees. Good
practices should be noted and filed for systematic analysis. Cases of deliberate ill-treatment should
be examined to identify gaps in the protection of persons deprived of their liberty.
31. Recommendations should be well founded and should reflect, among other things, relevant international
norms and practices. In general, recommendations should have a preventive focus, addressing
systematic gaps and practices (root causes), and be feasible in practice. They should be relevantly
focused, precise and non-complex, so as to avoid confusion in the dialogue about their implementation.
32. The national preventive mechanism should, based on its experience, develop a strategy for the use
of its report, which should include the submission of the report to relevant official bodies and the
Government as a basis for and dialogue, and possibly its publication and dissemination, for the
purpose of alerting the wider society.
D. Follow-up to recommendations for change issued by the Subcommittee and by the national
preventive mechanism
33. The national preventive mechanism should regularly verify the implementation of recommendations,
primarily through follow-up visits to problematic institutions, but also based on relevant information
from, among others, human rights bodies, governmental institutions and civil society. In order to
facilitate effective follow-up, the mechanism should put in place a follow-up strategy that is clear and
impact-oriented and develop the practices and tools necessary to implement the strategy.
34. The mechanism should maintain a constructive dialogue with, firstly, those to whom the recommendations
are addressed, namely, governmental authorities and the directors/managers of the places of detention
concerned, but also with their supervising authorities. The dialogue should involve both written and
oral exchanges on the implementation of the recommendations. Those to whom the recommendations
are addressed should, on request from the mechanism, develop a concrete policy or plan of action
to commence reform where needed. In particular cases it may be appropriate to recommend that
authorities immediately put an end to certain practices and initiate a criminal investigation.
35. Visit reports, including recommendations, should, in principle, be published. Exceptions may exist
where the national preventive mechanism considers it inappropriate to do so or where there is a legal
impediment. Annual reports must be published and should include, in addition to recommendations for
change, the outcome of the dialogue with authorities, i.e., follow-up on recommendations mentioned
in previous annual reports. The mechanism may also publish thematic reports.
36. The national preventive mechanism should maintain a dialogue with other relevant national and
international actors, including civil society, consider all relevant information received from them and
advocate for submission of relevant information to the mechanism.
E. Prevention of reprisals
37. The national preventive mechanism should develop a strategy for preventing reprisals and threats by
detention centre staff, as well as by fellow detainees, against persons interviewed during visits and
ANNEXES I 49
others who may provide sensitive or critical information before or after a visit. Such a strategy should
also address threats of reprisal against members and staff of the mechanism. The strategy could
include the following guidance:
(a) The national preventive mechanism should establish a policy setting out the types of information
that can be collected during group interviews and the types of information that should be
collected in private interviews only. Whenever sensitive or critical information is obtained during
a private interview a number of additional private interviews should be conducted to preserve
the anonymity of the source of the information;
(b) The national preventive mechanism should, during talks with management, staff and detainees
in places of detention, stress that reprisals are explicitly prohibited in the Optional Protocol,
that follow-up will focus on that issue and that detainees subject to reprisals should notify the
mechanism. It is advisable to widely distribute to managers, staff and detainees folders containing
information about the mandate and working methods of the national preventive mechanism,
including references to the absolute prohibition of reprisals, and the address and contact
information of the mechanism. National Preventive Mechanisms should ensure that they are
expressly permitted, either in law or in practice, to distribute any material about the mechanism
to detainees and that detainees may receive and keep such material;
(c) Cases of particular concern should be followed up and monitored, including after the transfer
of the detainees concerned to other institutions; increased attention should be paid to places
where reprisals have or are likely to have occurred, and the monitoring of those places should
be enhanced;
(d) Intervention by and assistance from other actors, including non-governmental organizations, may
be sought and facilitated; it is essential to ensure that National Preventive Mechanisms share
relevant information with international monitoring bodies about possible cases of reprisal;
(e) Relevant information from other actors, including non-governmental organizations working
directly or indirectly with detainees, that gives rise to concerns regarding the possibility of
reprisals, should be acted upon immediately;
(f) Any well-founded concern about reprisals should be analysed, verified to the extent possible and
filed. It should be considered for inclusion in the reporting of the national preventive mechanism
and should give rise to a recommendation for the improvement of institutional practices with a
view to protecting and compensating the victims and preventing reoccurrences;
(g) With the consent of the detainees concerned, cases of particular individuals at risk of reprisal
may be brought to the attention of the authorities and followed up;
(h) In cases of alleged reprisal, the national preventive mechanism should seek to ensure that a
disciplinary or criminal investigation is initiated and that victims are protected and, when relevant,
compensated.
ÎÎVI. Issues related to the legislative framework

38. The national preventive mechanism should ensure that the relevant legislative framework encompasses
an absolute prohibition of torture and a definition of torture in accordance with the provisions in
article 1 of the Convention against Torture, and that the penalties for infractions are commensurate
with the gravity of the offence. The term “place of detention” should be defined in national law,
bearing in mind the principles set out in the Optional Protocol and the protection of human rights.
39. The mechanism should consider monitoring and analysing systematically the implementation of
proceedings against suspected perpetrators of torture and ill-treatment and advocate for, or facilitate
the establishment of, a national register of allegations of torture, any investigation or criminal
proceedings undertaken and the outcome thereof. Likewise, the mechanism should advocate for
the establishment of an independent body with the capacity to assess allegations of torture and ill-
treatment in accordance with the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol).
40. The national preventive mechanism must be mandated to assess draft and existing legislation against
the State party’s international obligations and against other international standards. Therefore, it
should propose and advocate for necessary legislative changes and advocate for their implementation
with parliamentarians and Government, among others, in conjunction with other relevant actors
when appropriate. Such changes should include amendments to the legislation if it is not compliant

with the Convention against Torture, the Optional Protocol and the Paris Principles. The mechanism
should develop a system to ensure that it is alerted to relevant legislation and draft laws.
41. Legislation should clearly state the obligation of competent authorities to examine the recommendations
of the national preventive mechanism and to enter into a dialogue with it regarding the implementation
of its recommendations.
ÎÎVII. Cross-cutting issues

A. Cooperation and communication
42. The national preventive mechanism should establish: (a) a mechanism for communicating and
cooperating with relevant national authorities on the implementation of recommendations, including
through urgent action procedures; (b) a means for addressing and resolving any operational difficulties
encountered during the exercise of its duties, including during visits; (c) a policy on publicizing reports
or parts of reports, including the main findings and recommendations; and (d) a policy regarding the
production and publication of thematic reports.
43. The national preventive mechanism should establish a strategy for cooperation with other national
and international actors, including the Subcommittee, on the prevention of torture and on the follow-
up of cases of suspected or documented torture or ill-treatment and of possible reprisals. A wide range
of national actors, such representatives of non- governmental organizations, trade unions, concerned
social and professional organizations, trends in philosophical or religious thought, universities and
qualified experts, Parliament and government departments, could be included.24 Special attention
should be paid to developing relations with civil society members devoted to dealing with vulnerable
groups.25
44. The mechanism should establish a strategy for making its mandate and work known to the general
public and a simple, accessible and confidential procedure through which the general public might
provide it with relevant information.
B. Systematization of experiences
45. The national preventive mechanism should ensure that important concrete and contextual observations
arising from its visits to institutions and stemming from other reliable sources, its recommendations
and the responses from the authorities are categorized, filed and systematically processed for use in
dialogue with the authorities, in the ongoing planning of work and in the further development of its
strategies.
C. Prioritizing resources
46. While the national preventive mechanism should prioritize the most problematic issues and institutions,
it should not exclude from the scope of its work any particular form of institution or geographical area
or any national preventive mechanism task other than visiting.
D. Annual report
47. The annual report of the national preventive mechanism should include:
(a) Accounts of current challenges to the protection of the rights of persons deprived of their liberty
and to the effective execution of the mechanism’s mandate, and strategic short-term and longer
term plans, including with respect to setting priorities;
(b) Analysis of the most important findings and an account of recommendations and the responses
of the authorities thereto;
(c) Follow-up on issues outstanding from previously published reports;
(d) Consideration of thematic issues;
(e) Accounts of cooperation with other actors on the prevention of torture;
(f) An overview of all other national preventive mechanism activities undertaken and their outcomes.
24
Paris Principles.
25
Ibid.
ANNEXES I 51
ANNEX 5:
NPM ASSESSMENT MATRIX FOR NPMs
1
Introduction
Assessment NO Partial YES Comments
tool
paragraph
1. Is education and information on the
prohibition of torture fully included in the
training of any personnel who might be
1   
involved in depriving persons of their liberty?
2. Is the prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment and punishment
included in the working regulations of such
1   
personnel?
3. Does the NPM examine rules or instructions
issued regarding the duties and functions of
law enforcement personnel (civil or military),
medical personnel, public officials and other
persons who may be involved in the custody, 9.5   
interrogation or treatment of any individual
subjected to any form of detention in order
to verify conformity with the UNCAT, OPCAT
and other human rights instruments?
4. Are all methods and processes of taking
away the liberty and freedom of a person 1   
systematically reviewed by the NPM?
5. Has the State Party provided the NPM
with the necessary, sufficient and
appropriate resources to enable it to carry 3   
out its functions in accordance with the
requirements of the OPCAT?
6. Does the State Party refrain from
supervising the NPM?
3   
7. Does the NPM have the capacity to
operate in conformity with the principles
relevant to the status of national institutions 4   
for the promotion and protection of human
rights (Paris Principles)2?
8. Is the development of the NPM considered
an ongoing obligation, with reinforcement
of formal aspects and working methods
refined and improved incrementally? If
5   
yes, please provide some examples in the
comments field.
9. Does the NPM systematically and
periodically carry out self-evaluation? If
yes, please indicate the date of the last
6 and 18   
exercise in the comments box.
10. Does this assessment consider existing
challenges such as resourcing issues?
18   
11. Does the assessment cover activities
currently being undertaken?   
12. Does the assessment review criteria for the
selection of planned activities?
18.1   
13. Does the assessment review criteria for the
composition of working groups, visiting 18.2   
and outreach teams?
14. Does the assessment review the criteria
for the involvement of specific forms of
professional expertise or other input from
18.2   
national/international stakeholders?
1
Following the criteria established by OPCAT, the SPT guidelines on National Preventive Mechanisms, SPT analytical assessment tool for
National Preventive Mechanisms.
2
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfNationalInstitutions.aspx

tool
paragraph
15. Does the assessment include analysis
of problems or challenges, or of good 18.3   
practices identified?
16. Does the assessment cover cooperation
with other actors?
18.4   
17. Does the assessment consider resources
budgeted?
18.5   
18. Does the assessment consider strategies
and working methods to be adopted when 18.6   
implementing activities?
19. Does the assessment consider
recommendations submitted to authorities?
18.7   
20. Does the assessment consider follow-
up actions and implementation of
recommendations, including dialogue with
18.8   
authorities?
systematisation of observations,
recommendations issued and the
18.9   
responses received from authorities?
implementation ?
18.9   
23. Does the assessment cover analysis of how
and why both successes and failures in 18.9   
effective change have occurred?
24. Does the assessment cover all other NPM
activities besides visiting, output and 18.10   
impact assessments?
25. Does the assessment consider resources
spent?
18.11   
26. Does the assessment consider the need
to develop alternative strategies or 18.12   
approaches?
27. Are the working strategies subject to
periodic evaluation and improvement?
19   
28. Does the NPM include its partners in
review and stock-taking of its activities?
19   
29. Does the NPM seek input from
international stakeholders such as the SPT 19   
in periodic evaluation and improvement?
30. Has the NPM considered benefitting from
the SPT as regards training and technical
assistance with a view to strengthening its 5   
capacities? If the NPM has concrete needs,
please specify in the comments box.
31. Can the SPT offer advice/assistance to the
NPM on the evaluation of its needs and the
means necessary to strengthen the protection
of persons deprived of their liberty against 5   
torture and ill-treatment on request from State
Parties or a NPM? If yes, please specify in
comments box.
32. Does the NPM make recommendations
to the relevant authorities with the aim of
improving the treatment and conditions of
persons deprived of their liberty and of 9.1   
preventing torture or other cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment of
those persons?
33. Does the NPM engage in a meaningful
process of dialogue with the SPT
responsible concerning implementation of
9.1   
any recommendations?
ANNEXES I 53
Assesssment NO Partial YES Comments
tool
paragraph
34. Does the NPM engage in a meaningful
process of dialogue with any other
stakeholders concerning implementation of
9.1   
any recommendations?
35. Does the NPM publicize its opinions,
findings and other relevant information?
9.2   
36. Does the NPM make use of a broad range
of media?
9.2   
37. Does the NPM submit proposals and
observations concerning existing 9.3 and 12.4   
legislation?
observations concerning existing 9.3 and 12.4   
legislation?
observations concerning relevant human 9.3   
rights action plans?
40. Does the NPM make submissions to the
Government, Parliament and any other 9.3   
competent body on an advisory basis?
41. Does the NPM perform systematic reviews
of interrogation rules, instructions, methods
and practices as well as arrangements
for the detention and treatment of persons 9.4   
subjected to any form of detention in any
territory under SPT jurisdiction, with a view
to preventing cases of torture?
42. Does the NPM assist in the formulation
of programmes for teaching on the
prohibition and prevention of torture 9.6   
and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment?
43. Does the NPM carry out research into
human rights?
9.6   
44. Does the NPM, where appropriate, take
part in the execution of such programmes
and research in schools, universities and
9.6   
professional fields?
45. Does the NPM examine the curricula
of educational institutions to ensure that
education and information on prohibition
against torture is fully included in the
training of law enforcement personnel (civil
or military), medical personnel, public
9.7   
officials and other persons who may be
involved in the custody, interrogation or
treatment of any individual subjected to any
form of detention?
46. Does the NPM contribute to the reports
which State Parties are required to submit
to United Nations bodies and committees, 9.8   
and to regional institutions, pursuant to
their treaty obligations?
47. Does the NPM present its own shadow
report?
9.8   
48. Where necessary does the NPM,
with respect to the reports to UN and
regional institutions, express an opinion 9.8   
on the subject, in accordance with its
independent status?
49. Does the NPM follow up the process of
implementation of recommendations made
by United Nations and regional bodies to 9.9   
the SPTs with regard to torture and related
issues?

tool
paragraph
50. Does the NPM provide advice at the
national level with respect to follow-up of 9.9   
recommendations?
51. Does the NPM inform the UN and regional
bodies of follow-up of recommendations, 9.9   
as appropriate?
52. Has the NPM established or does it
maintain contacts with other NPMs
with a view to sharing experiences and
9.10   
reinforcing effectiveness?
53 9.10   
54. Has the NPM met with the SPT? 9.10   
Organisation of the NPM

Factors to evaluate
55. Are the mandate and powers of the NPM
clearly set forth in a constitutional or new
or existing legislative text, specifying its
composition and sphere of competence?
10   
If yes, please give links to relevant texts in
the comments box.
56. Does this same constitutional text or
legislation specify that the visiting mandate
of the NPM extends to all places where 10   
people are or may be deprived of their
liberty, as set out in Article 4 of the OPCAT?
57. Does the relevant legislation specify
the period of office of the members of
the NPM (for either a determined or
11   
indeterminate period)?
58. Does the relevant legislation specify any
grounds for dismissal of members of the 11   
NPM?
59. Does the legislation guarantee that both
the members of the NPM and its staff
enjoy such privileges and immunities as 11   
are necessary for the independent exercise
of their functions?
60. Does the legislation address the issue of
reprisals and other similar actions against
NPM members, their partners or any person
11   
who has communicated with the NPM?
61. Does the NPM have the power to freely
select the places of deprivation of liberty in 12.1   
which visits are to be carried out?
62. Does the NPM have the power to
undertake regular examination of the
treatment of persons deprived of their
12.1   
liberty in those places?
determine the timing of such visits?
12.1   
determine whether the visits are to be 12.1   
announced or unannounced?
65. Does the NPM have the power to select
the persons to be interviewed?
12.1   
66. Does the NPM have access to all personal
and sensitive information necessary for 12.2   
pursuing its mandate?
67. Does it have access to all premises? 12.2   
68. Does it have access to all persons who
need contacting in pursuit its mandate?
12.2   
ANNEXES I 55
Factors to evaluate Assessment NO Partial YES Comments
tool
paragraph
69. Does it have the power to make
recommendations to the relevant authorities?
12.3   
70. Are all these powers set out in the legislation? 12   
71. Are members of the NPM selected through
an open, transparent and inclusive process?
13   
72. Do members of the NPM collectively have
the expertise and experience necessary for 13   
its effective functioning?
73. Is the selection process prescribed in the
governing NPM legislation?
13   
74. Does the NPM ensure that its team has
the diversity of background (gender,
minorities), capabilities and professional 13   
knowledge necessary to enable it to
properly fulfil its mandate?
75. Does the NPM in its activities benefit from
cooperation with civil society, universities
and qualified experts, Parliament,
13   
Government departments etc.?
76. Has the NPM created relations with civil
society members dedicated to working 13   
with vulnerable groups?
77. If the NPM performs other functions in
addition to those under the OPCAT, are
those functions located within a separate 14   
unit or department with its own staff and a
separate budget?
78. With respect to the foregoing, is the
relationship between those functions and
the rest of the organization, the working
methods and safeguards applicable to 14   
preserving the independence of the NPM
function, clearly described in relevant
internal regulations?
79. Has the State made available the necessary
resources for the effective functioning of the 15   
NPM?
80. Has the NPM prioritised its own use
of resources, on the basis of a regular
analysis of its practice and experience,
and in the light of its evaluation of its
15 and 9   
needs and the means necessary for it to
exercise its mandate appropriately?
81. Does the NPM advocate for the provision
of the resources necessary for the effective
exercise of its mandate, with the assistance 15   
of the SPT and /or other relevant actors if
necessary?
82. Has the NPM developed policies and
rules of procedure which address the 16.1   
organization of the office?
83. Do these policies and rules address its
work and budgets for all its activities?
16.1   
84. Are there policies and procedures for
decision-making?
16.2   
employment and dismissal of staff?
16.3   
preventing conflicts of interest?
16.4   
employment of external experts, and for
establishing the necessary qualifications
16.5   
and terms of reference for their work?

Factors to evaluate Assessment NO Partial YES Comments
tool
paragraph
sharing information within the NPM?
16.6   
communication with other national and
international actors, including the SPT, and
16.7   
the press?
90. Are there policies and procedures for data
protection and issues of confidentiality?
16.8   
Working Strategy of the NPM

Factors to evaluate
91. Has the NPM formed partnerships with
national and international actors in order
to raise awareness of the obligations of the 17   
State Parties among decision-makers and
within the general public?
92. Are these partnerships designed to
encourage and facilitate change in
legislation, the policies of the authorities, 17   
general attitudes, and conditions and
practices in places of detention?
93. Has the NPM developed long-term as
well as short-term concrete strategies for
its work in order to achieve the maximum
impact on problems and challenges
18   
relevant to its mandate in the local
context?
94. Do members of the NPM and its staff
receive ongoing training on NPM activities
and torture prevention, covering inter alia 20   
methodological, strategic and ethical
issues?
95. Do external experts and other possible
contributors receive on-going training on
NPM activities and torture prevention, 20   
covering inter alia methodological,
strategic, and ethical issues?
96. Do members of the NPM and its staff
participate in developing working 20   
methods?
97. Do external experts and other possible
contributors participate in developing 20   
working methods?
98. Is the SPT involved in any of the NPM’s
activities on training and development of 20   
working methods?
Implementation of Visiting Activities

Planning
99. In the framework of its visiting activities
does the NPM actively seek information
in order to ensure that it has data on all
21   
places of detention?
100. Does the NPM keep an archive of all
relevant and available information about
on places of detention and the treatment of
21   
persons held there?
101. Does the NPM have criteria for the
selection of places to be visited?
22   
102. Does the NPM have criteria for decisions
on thematic visits?
22   
103. Do these criteria ensure that all places of
detention are visited regularly?
22   
ANNEXES I 57
Planning Assessment NO Partial YES Comments
tool
paragraph
104. Do these criteria take into account the
type and size of institutions and their level,
and the nature of known human rights
22   
problems?
105. Do these criteria leave room for flexibility
in the allocation of resources to ensure
that follow-up and urgent visits can be
22   
undertaken?
106. Are these criteria transparent, clear and
published?
22   
107. Is the visiting team composed of
individuals with the necessary knowledge
(i.e. languages and special needs/
23   
vulnerable groups)?
108. Does the composition of the visiting team
take into account the experience and skills 23   
of members?
take into account the need for a gender 23   
balance?
ensure adequate representation of ethnic 23   
and minority groups?
111. Does the visiting team have the necessary
human resources to enable it to carry out 23   
its tasks adequately?
technical resources to enable it to carry 23   
out its tasks adequately?
time available to enable it to carry out its 23   
tasks adequately?
Visit Methodology
114. Has the NPM developed guidelines for
visits to the various categories of places
of detention? If yes, please give list in the
24   
comments box.
115. Do these guidelines include instructions for
selecting the theme for a visit?
24   
116. Do these guidelines include instructions for
conducting private interviews?
24   
117. Do these guidelines include instructions
for developing policies for handling 24   
vulnerable groups of detainees?
118. Do these guidelines include instructions
for ensuring that information is collected
from all available sources, such as from the
administration of the visited institution, from
staff, from detainees from all areas and
24   
units, from other visitors if appropriate, and
from outside actors such as Civil Society
and other monitoring mechanisms?
119. Are all facilities within institutions visited,
bearing in mind the target of the visit?
25   
120. Are existing registers assessed? 25   
121. Are examples of case records assessed? 25   
122. Are activities and services for the
detainees assessed?
25   
123. Have practices and tools been developed
for cross-checking, testing and assessment 26   
of observations?

Visit Methodology Assessment NO Partial YES Comments
tool
paragraph
124. Have practices and tools been developed
to ensure that recommendations are based
on rigorous analysis and are factually well-
26   
grounded?
125. Has the NPM put in place an effective
data management system to ensure that 26   
the data collected is systematized?
126. Is there a policy which provides for
immediate debriefing with representatives of 27   
the place of detention at the end of a visit?
127. Has the NPM developed a code of
conduct for a visiting team?
28   
128. Does this code of conduct cover how to
address detainees and staff?
28   
129. Does this code of conduct cover
observation of cultural and any other 28   
relevant sensitivities?
130. Does this code of conduct cover how
and when to conduct individual or group 28   
interviews?
131. Does this code of conduct cover handling
of security and safety issues?
28   
132. Does this code of conduct cover how and
when to ensure confidentiality?
28   
133. Does this code of conduct cover
management of internal debriefings with
a view to coordinating and cross-checking 28   
data collection and preparation for the
closing of the visit?
134. Does this code of conduct cover how to
ensure that the visitors do not step outside
or in any other way exceed the NPM
28   
mandate during a visit?
135. Does this code of conduct cover how
to ensure participation in reporting and 28   
follow-up etc.?
136. Does the NPM have clear guidelines for
reporting individual cases of deliberate 29   
ill-treatment?
requesting enquiries?
29   
138. Does the NPM have clear guidelines
for maintaining the confidentiality of the
detainee concerned and of any other
29   
source of relevant information?
protecting such persons against reprisals?
29   
140. Do visit reports focus on the most important
issues, i.e. reporting of ill-treatment, gaps
in policies, regulations, practices, and of 30   
the appropriateness of conditions under
which detainees are living?
141. Do visit reports reflect any systematic lack
of protection of the rights of detainees?
30   
142. Are good practices noted and filed for
systematic analysis?
30   
143. Are cases of deliberate ill-treatment
examined to identify gaps in the protection 30   
of persons deprived of their liberty?
144. Are recommendations well founded,
reflecting relevant international norms and 31   
practices?
ANNEXES I 59
Visit Methodology Assessment NO Partial YES Comments
tool
paragraph
145. Do recommendations have a preventive
focus, addressing systematic gaps and 31   
practices (including root causes)?
146. Are recommendations feasible in practice? 31   
147. Are recommendations appropriately
focused, precise and free from
complication so as to avoid confusion in
31   
the dialogue about their implementation?
148. Has the NPM, based on experience,
developed a strategy for the use of its 32   
report?
149. Does this strategy include submission
to relevant official bodies and the
Government for dissemination, dialogue 32   
and, possibly, publication for the purpose
of alerting wider society?
Follow-up on SPT’s and own recommendations
for changes
150. Does the NPM regularly verify the
implementation of recommendations?
33   
151. Does the NPM verify implementation
through continuous contacts and, if
necessary, follow-up visits to problematic
33   
institutions?
152. Does it verify implementation based on
other relevant information from. e.g.,
Human Rights bodies, governmental
33   
institutions and civil society?
153. Has the NPM put in place a clear ‘impact-
orientated’ follow-up strategy?
33   
154. Has the NPM developed the practices
and tools necessary for implementing the 33   
strategy?
155. Does the NPM maintain a constructive
dialogue with the relevant government
authorities regarding implementation of
34   
recommendations?
dialogue with the directors or managers
of the places of detention regarding
34   
dialogue with the supervising authorities of 34   
the addressees of the recommendations?
158. Does the dialogue involve both written and
oral exchanges?
34   
159. Are addressees of the recommendations
required, at the request of the NPM, to
develop a concrete policy or plan of 34   
action for commencement of reform where
needed?
160. Are there instances where the NPM
recommends that authorities immediately
put an end to certain practices and initiate
34   
a criminal investigation?
161. Are visit reports, including
recommendations, published? If yes, 35   
please give links to the webpage.
162. Are annual reports published? If yes,
please give links to the webpage.
35   
163. Does the annual report include
recommendations for change?
35   

Follow-up on SPT’s and own recommendations Assessment NO Partial YES Comments
for changes tool
paragraph
164. Does the Annual Report include the
outcome of the dialogue with authorities,
i.e. follow-up to recommendations
35   
mentioned in previous annual reports?
165. Does the NPM publish thematic reports? 35   
166. Does the NPM have in all aspects of its
work a strategy for maintaining a dialogue
and cooperation with other relevant 36 and 43   
national and international actors, including
civil society?
167. Does the NPM consider all relevant
information received from them?
36   
168. Does the NPM press for submission of
relevant information?
36   
Prevention of reprisals against persons
interviewed during visits, and against others
providing the NPM with information before or
after a visit and also NPM members
169. Has the NPM developed a strategy for the
prevention of reprisals or threats from staff,
as well as from fellow detainees, against
37   
persons interviewed during visits?
170. Has the NPM developed a strategy for
prevention of reprisals against others
who may provide sensitive or critical
37   
information before or after a visit?
171. Does the strategy address cases of threat
of reprisals against NPM members and 37   
staff?
172. Does the strategy include an NPM policy
setting out the types of information that
can be collected during group interviews 37.1   
and the types of information that should be
collected only in private interviews?
173. Does the strategy cover a policy on
how additional private interviews will
be conducted to preserve the anonymity
of the source of information whenever
37.1   
sensitive or critical information is obtained
during a private interview?
174. Does the NPM during talks with
management, staff and detainees, stress
that reprisals are explicitly prohibited in
37.2   
the OPCAT?
175. Does the NPM, during talks with
that follow-up will focus on this specific
37.2   
issue?
176. Does the NPM, during talks with
that all persons that have been contacting 37.2   
NPM in facility subject to reprisals should
notify the NPM?
177. Is printed information on the mandate
and working methods of the NPM
widely distributed to managers, staff and
37.2   
detainees?
178. Does this information cover the absolute
prohibition of reprisals?
37.2   
179. Does this information include the contact
address of the NPM?
37.2   
ANNEXES I 61
Prevention of reprisals against persons Assessment NO Partial YES Comments
interviewed during visits, others providing the tool
paragraph
NPM with information before or after a visit and
also NPM members
180. Is the NPM expressly permitted (either
in law or in practice) to distribute any
material on the NPM to detainees and
37.2   
others in the facilities?
181. Is it expressly permitted (either in law,
regulations or in practice) for persons to 37.2   
receive and keep such material?
182. Are cases of particular concern followed
up and monitored, including after transfer
of the detainees or personnel concerned to
37.3   
other institutions?
183. Is increased attention paid to, and
enhanced monitoring carried out of,
places where reprisals have occurred or
37.3   
are likely to have occurred?
184. Is intervention by and assistance from
other actors, including NGOs, sought and 37.4   
facilitated?
185. Does the NPM share relevant information
with international monitoring bodies on 37.4   
possible cases of reprisals?
186. Does the NPM act on immediately relevant
information from other actors, including
NGOs working directly or indirectly with 37.5   
detainees, which gives rise to concerns
regarding possible reprisals?
187. Is any well-founded concern about
reprisals analysed, verified as far as 37.6   
possible, and filed?
188. Is any well-founded concern about
reprisals included in the reporting of the 37.6   
NPM?
189. Are such concerns subject to
recommendations for improvement of
institutional practices with a view to 37.6   
protection and compensation of victims
and prevention of recurrences?
190. Are cases regarding particular individuals
at risk of reprisals brought to the attention 37.7   
of the authorities and followed up?
191. Is this done with the consent of the persons
concerned?
37.7   
192. In cases of alleged reprisals, does the
NPM seek to ensure that a disciplinary or 37.8   
criminal investigation is initiated?
193. In cases of alleged reprisals, does the
NPM seek to ensure that victims are 37.8   
protected?
194. In case of alleged reprisals, does the
NPM seek to ensure that victims are 37.8   
compensated?
Issues related to the legislative framework
195. Does the NPM ensure that the relevant
legislative framework encom-passes 38   
absolute prohibition of torture?
196. Does the NPM ensure that the relevant
legislative framework encompasses the
definition of torture in accordance with the
38   
provisions of the UNCAT, Article 1?
197. Does the NPM ensure that the penalties
for infractions are commensurate with the 38   
gravity of the offence?

Issues related to the legislative framework Assessment NO Partial YES Comments
tool
paragraph
198. Are places of detention appropriately
defined in national law?
38   
199. Is this definition in keeping with OPCAT
principles and protection of human rights?
38   
200. Does the NPM monitor and systematically
analyse implementation of proceedings
against suspected perpetrators of torture
39   
and ill-treatment?
201. Does the NPM advocate for, or facilitate
the establishment of, a national register of
allegations of torture, any investigation or 39   
criminal proceedings undertaken, and the
outcome thereof?
202. Does the NPM advocate for the
establishment of an independent body with
the capacity to assess allegations of torture 39   
and ill-treatment according to the Istanbul
Protocol?
203. Is the NPM mandated to assess draft
and existing legislation against the State
Party’s international obligations and other
40   
international standards?
204. Does the NPM propose and advocate for
necessary legislative changes?
40   
205. Does the NPM press parliamentarians and
government for implementation of the State 40   
Party’s international obligations?
206. Is this done in conjunction with other
relevant actors when appropriate?
40   
207. Does the NPM propose and press for
amendments to the legislation if it is not
compliant with the UNCAT, OPCAT and
40   
the Paris Principles?
208. Has the NPM developed a system for
ensuring that it is alerted to relevant 40   
legislation and draft laws?
209. Does the legislation establishing the NPM
clearly underlline the obligation of the
competent authorities to examine the
recommendations of the NPM and to enter
41   
into a dialogue with it on implementation
of its recommendations?
Cross-Cutting Issues
Cooperation and communication
210. Has the NPM established a mechanism
for communicating and cooperating
with relevant national authorities on
42   
211. Does this mechanism include urgent action
procedures?
42   
212. Has the NPM established a means for
addressing and resolving any operational
difficulties encountered during the exercise
42   
of its duties, including during visits?
213. Has the NPM established a policy
for publicising reports, or parts of
reports including the main findings and
42   
recommendations?
214. 2Has the NPM established a policy
regarding production and publication of 42   
thematic reports?
ANNEXES I 63
Cooperation and communication Assessment NO Partial YES Comments
tool
paragraph
215. Has the NPM established a strategy for
cooperation with other national and
international actors, including the SPT
on follow-up of cases of suspected or
43   
documented torture or ill-treatment and
cases of possible reprisals?
216. Does this strategy encompass cooperation
with a wide range of national actors such
as non-governmental organizations, trade
unions, concerned social and professional
organizations, universities and qualified 43   
experts, Parliament and Government
departments, while also taking due
account of trends in philosophical or
religious thought?
217. Is special attention paid to creating
relations with civil society members 43   
devoted to addressing vulnerable groups?
218. Has the NPM established a strategy for
making its mandate and work known to 44   
the general public?
219. Has the NPM established a simple,
accessible and confidential procedure
through which the general public might
44   
provide it with relevant information?
Systematization of experiences
220. Does the NPM ensure that important
concrete and contextual observations
arising from its visits to institutions and
stemming from other reliable sources
45   
are categorised, filed and regularly
processed?
221. Does the NPM ensure that such
observations are shared with the 45   
authorities?
222. Does the NPM ensure that such
observations are used for the ongoing
planning of work and further development
45   
of its strategies?
223. Does the NPM ensure that its
recommendations and the responses from
the authorities are categorized, filed and
45   
regularly processed?
the authorities are used in subsequent
45   
dialogue with the authorities?
the authorities are used for the ongoing 45   
planning of work and for the further
development of its strategies?
Prioritizing resources
226. Does the NPM prioritise the most
problematic issues and institutions?
46   
227. Does the NPM ensure that it does not
exclude any particular form of institution
or geographical area and any other NPM 46   
task (other than visiting) from the scope of
its work?

Annual Report
228. Is a separate Annual Report of the NPM
published?
47   
229. Does the NPM’s Annual Report include
accounts of current challenges to the
protection of the rights of persons deprived 47.1   
of their liberty and to the effective
execution of the NPM’s mandate?
Annual Report Assessment NO Partial YES Comments
tool
paragraph
230. Does the Annual Report include strategic
short- and longer-term plans, including 47.1   
setting of priorities?
231. Does the annual report include analysis of
the most important findings?
47.2   
232. Does the annual report include an account
of recommendations and the responses of 47.2   
the authorities to them?
233. Does the annual report include follow-up
on issues outstanding from previously 47.3   
published reports?
234. Does the annual report include
consideration of thematic issues?
47.4   
235. Does the annual report include accounts
of cooperation with other actors on the 47.5   
prevention of torture?
236. Does the annual report include an overview
of all other NPM activities undertaken and 47.6   
their outcomes?
ANNEXES I 65
ANNEX 6:
HOW TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE OPCAT
SPECIAL FUND
Contributions to the Special Fund may be accepted from Governments, intergovernmental or non-
governmental organizations, private sector organizations or the public at large, in accordance with
the Financial Regulations and Rules of the United Nations.
Demand for support from the Fund will grow as the activities of the Subcommittee on the Prevention
of Torture expand. The Fund’s increasing visibility is also expected to lead to a rise in the number of
applications.
The minimum required on an annual basis to guarantee the Fund’s functioning would be some
$500,000, which would enable it to support an average of 10-20 projects per year with a reasonable
level of funding per project (for example, $25,000). More contributions are therefore required
to sustain and consolidate this tool, which engages States and provides them with the technical
assistance to implement activities aimed at preventing torture.
Contributions to the Special Fund should be marked “Payee: Special Fund established by the Optional
Protocol to the Convention against Torture, account CH”, and may be made by:
uubank transfer in United States dollars to the United Nations Geneva General Fund, Account no.
485001802, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, 270 Park Avenue, 43rd floor, New York, NY 10017,
United States of America (Swift code CHAS US 33; bank number (ABA) 021000021);
uubank transfer in Euros to the United Nations Office at Geneva, Account No. 6161600934,
J.P.Morgan Chase AG, Grueneburgweg 2, 60322 Frankfurt am Main, Germany (Swift code
CHAS DE FX; bank number (BLZ) 50110800; IBAN DE78 5011 0800 6161 6009 34);
uubank transfer in Pounds Sterling to the United Nations Office at Geneva, Account No. 23961903,
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, 25 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AJ, United Kingdom (Swift code
CHAS GB 2L; bank number (SC) 609242; IBAN GB68 CHAS 6092 4223 9619 03);
uubank transfer in Swiss Francs to the United Nations Geneva General Fund, Account No. 240
C0590160.0, UBS AG, rue du Rhône 8, Case Postale 2600, CH-1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
(Swift code UBSW CH ZH 80A; bank number 240; IBAN CH92 0024 0240 C059 0160 0);
uubank transfer in other currencies to the United Nations Geneva General Fund, Account No. 240
C0590160.1, UBS AG, rue du Rhône 8, Case Postale 2600, CH 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
(Swift code UBSW CH ZH 80A; bank number 240; IBAN CH65 0024 0240 C059 0160 1);
uucheque payable to the United Nations, addressed to Trésorerie, Nations Unies, Palais des
Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland.
If possible donors are requested to inform the Donor and External Relations Section of OHCHR when
a payment has been made (including a copy of the bank transfer order or the cheque) to facilitate
effective follow-up in the official recording procedure and for preparation of the Secretary-General’s
reports.

PREVENTING TORTURE: THE ROLE OF NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS – A PRACTICAL GUIDE
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Palais des Nations
CH 1211 Geneva – Switzerland
Telephone: +41 (0)22 917 9220
www.ohchr.org

Preventing Torture The Role of National Preventive Mechanisms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preventing Torture The Role of National Preventive Mechanisms

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preventing Torture The Role of National Preventive Mechanisms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PREVENTING TORTURE

New York and Geneva, 2018

Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein

Sir Malcolm Evans

iv I PREVENTING TORTURE: THE ROLE OF NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS – A PRACTICAL GUIDE

I. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS................................................................................. 3

II. KEY CRITERIA FOR AN EFFECTIVE NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM .................. 13

vi I PREVENTING TORTURE: THE ROLE OF NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS – A PRACTICAL GUIDE

2 I PREVENTING TORTURE: THE ROLE OF NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS – A PRACTICAL GUIDE

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) are independent visiting bodies established at

4 I PREVENTING TORTURE: THE ROLE OF NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS – A PRACTICAL GUIDE

The mandate’s character is preventive; NPMs do not undertake investigations or adjudicate on

A NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM IS NOT AN INVESTIGATIVE BODY. The man-

Question 2: Why establish a National Preventive Mechanism?

ÎÎTO FULFIL LEGAL OBLIGATIONS RELATING TO TORTURE PREVENTION

The States parties to the Optional Protocol should:

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS I 5

Question 3: What are the functions of National Preventive Mechanisms?

Question 4: Where and when do National Preventive Mechanisms conduct visits?

6 I PREVENTING TORTURE: THE ROLE OF NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS – A PRACTICAL GUIDE

CHECKLIST: ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES OF PLACES OF DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY

ÎÎNPMS AND CROSS-BORDER MONITORING OF PERSONS IN DETENTION

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS I 7

8 I PREVENTING TORTURE: THE ROLE OF NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS – A PRACTICAL GUIDE

ARMENIA: THE HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER’S OFFICE

BRAZIL: THE NATIONAL SYSTEM TO PREVENT AND COMBAT TORTURE

DENMARK: PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN

GERMANY: THE NATIONAL AGENCY FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS I 9

SPT visit report to New Zealand (CAT/OP/NZL/1)

SENEGAL: THE NATIONAL OBSERVATORY OF PLACES OF DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY

SPT visit report to Senegal – NPM report (CAT/OP/SEN/2)

TUNISIA: THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE

The NPM is a recently-created specialized institution, established in 2013, through a transitional

SPT visit report to Tunisia – NPM report – (CAT/OP/TUN/R.2)

10 I PREVENTING TORTURE: THE ROLE OF NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS – A PRACTICAL GUIDE

The Subcommittee supports and advises NPMs through:

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS I 11

12 I PREVENTING TORTURE: THE ROLE OF NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS – A PRACTICAL GUIDE

KEY CRITERIA FOR AN EFFECTIVE

uuIndependence (mandate, operational, financial)

14 I PREVENTING TORTURE: THE ROLE OF NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS – A PRACTICAL GUIDE

CHECKLIST: MINIMUM POWERS INCLUDED IN THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE31

KEY CRITERIA FOR AN EFFECTIVE NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM I 15

Relationship between National Preventive Mechanisms and Civil Society Organizations

The steps in budgetary allocation may be as follows:

16 I PREVENTING TORTURE: THE ROLE OF NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS – A PRACTICAL GUIDE

Expertise and independence

RULES OF PROCEDURE should address the following issues:

uuBudgets for all activities

KEY CRITERIA FOR AN EFFECTIVE NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM I 17

As regards members and staff of NPMs, legislation should also specify:

18 I PREVENTING TORTURE: THE ROLE OF NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS – A PRACTICAL GUIDE

;; Immunity from personal arrest and detention

In addition to these immunities, confidential information collected by NPMs should be privileged.40

Protection against reprisals

KEY CRITERIA FOR AN EFFECTIVE NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM I 19

ÎÎSTRATEGY AND CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT