The United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) has identified a series of legal, institutional and operational priorities for strengthening National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs), the independent national bodies mandated to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The findings are contained in the Subcommittee’s eighteenth annual report, which reviews its activities during 2024 and examines the functioning of the preventive system established by the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT).
Establishing an NPM is a binding obligation
The Subcommittee reaffirmed that establishing and properly mandating an NPM is a core obligation of every State Party to OPCAT.
Under article 17 of the Optional Protocol, each State Party must maintain, designate or establish one or more independent NPMs no later than one year after ratifying or acceding to the Protocol.
The obligation is not fulfilled merely by adopting legislation or formally naming an existing institution. States must provide sufficient information demonstrating that the mechanism has been legally established, granted the necessary mandate and made operational in practice.
According to the Subcommittee, an effective NPM must be independent, adequately resourced, professionally staffed and capable of carrying out regular preventive visits to all places where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty.
Independence must exist in law and practice
The report identifies independence as one of the most important conditions for an effective NPM.
Article 18 of OPCAT requires States to guarantee:
- The functional independence of the mechanism;
- The independence of its members and personnel; and
- The financial resources necessary for it to perform its mandate.
The Subcommittee warned that formal legal guarantees are insufficient when regulatory ambiguities, institutional dependence, inadequate budgets or practical restrictions limit the mechanism’s autonomy.
Greater autonomy enables NPMs to determine their priorities, select the institutions they visit, conduct unannounced visits, communicate confidentially with persons deprived of liberty and publish findings without political or administrative interference.
Adequate resources are essential
An NPM cannot carry out an effective preventive mandate without sufficient and predictable resources.
The report highlights the need for:
- An autonomous and adequate budget;
- Sufficient numbers of qualified staff;
- Interdisciplinary expertise;
- Administrative and logistical support;
- The ability to conduct regular visits throughout the national territory;
- Appropriate training and professional development; and
- Institutional visibility and public accessibility.
Insufficient funding can undermine independence, restrict the frequency and geographic coverage of visits and prevent mechanisms from following up on their recommendations.
NPMs must publish annual reports
The Subcommittee emphasized the importance of publishing an NPM annual report containing a clear overview of:
- Activities and visits conducted;
- Principal observations and findings;
- Identified systemic risks;
- Recommendations issued to the authorities; and
- Follow-up on previously issued recommendations.
States have an obligation to publish and disseminate NPM annual reports. NPMs are also encouraged to share them with the Subcommittee.
Annual reporting increases the mechanism’s visibility, strengthens public understanding of its mandate and allows national and international actors to assess progress in preventing torture and ill-treatment.
Direct and confidential communication with the SPT
The Subcommittee maintains direct contact with NPMs during and between its sessions. This relationship is central to the international preventive system created by OPCAT.
Reports transmitted by the Subcommittee directly to NPMs are generally kept confidential to protect the privileged nature of this communication. However, NPMs are expected to respond to such reports so that a continuing dialogue can take place concerning their findings, recommendations and institutional development.
Confidentiality should facilitate cooperation and candid communication; it should not prevent follow-up or accountability.
A broad understanding of deprivation of liberty
A central issue in the report is the need to interpret “places of deprivation of liberty” as broadly as possible.
According to the Subcommittee’s general comment No. 1 (2024), an NPM’s mandate must not be restricted to prisons, police stations or formally designated detention centres. It must encompass every place under State jurisdiction or control where a person is not permitted, legally or in practice, to leave.
This includes public and private settings and institutions operating with the authorization, support, consent or acquiescence of public authorities.
Places falling within the NPM mandate may include:
- Prisons and police stations;
- Military detention facilities;
- Court holding cells;
- Immigration detention centres;
- Psychiatric and healthcare institutions;
- Social-care facilities;
- Institutions for persons with disabilities;
- Children’s institutions;
- Drug-treatment and rehabilitation centres;
- Educational and boarding institutions;
- Religious or faith-based facilities;
- Informal or unofficial places of confinement; and
- Private homes or residential arrangements in which a person may effectively be deprived of liberty.
Domestic authorities cannot exclude an institution from NPM oversight merely because it is privately managed, medically classified, informally operated or not formally recognized as a detention facility.
Unrestricted access is indispensable
The Subcommittee considers unrestricted access by NPMs to all places of deprivation of liberty essential to torture prevention.
An effective NPM must be able to:
- Select the institutions it intends to visit;
- Conduct regular and, where appropriate, unannounced visits;
- Access all premises and facilities;
- Obtain relevant information and records;
- Conduct private interviews with persons deprived of liberty;
- Communicate with staff, lawyers, doctors and other relevant actors;
- Identify institutional and systemic risk factors; and
- Issue and follow up on targeted recommendations.
Restrictions on access undermine the preventive purpose of OPCAT and may allow abusive practices to remain hidden.
Addressing systemic risk factors
NPMs should not limit their work to documenting individual allegations. Their central purpose is to identify and address laws, policies, practices and institutional conditions that create a risk of torture or ill-treatment.
The report identifies several systemic issues requiring preventive attention:
- Psychological torture and its root causes;
- Lack of accountability among law-enforcement officials;
- Impunity;
- Overcrowding;
- Poor material conditions;
- Inadequate healthcare;
- Limited mental-healthcare services;
- Staff shortages;
- Corruption;
- Informal prisoner hierarchies;
- Inter-prisoner violence;
- Punitive criminal justice policies;
- Insufficient rehabilitation and reintegration;
- Discrimination; and
- The heightened vulnerability of particular groups.
The Subcommittee calls for a proactive approach that examines how laws, budgets, institutional structures and daily practices affect the risk of abuse.
Drug policies must form part of NPM mandates
The report dedicates particular attention to the impact of drug policies on torture prevention.
The Subcommittee urges all NPMs to examine national drug policies and monitor their practical effects on persons deprived of liberty. This applies in criminal justice, administrative, healthcare and other settings.
Punitive approaches, including “zero-tolerance” and “war on drugs” policies, may contribute to:
- Widespread arrests;
- Excessive or mandatory pretrial detention;
- Punitive sentencing;
- Prison overcrowding; and
- Increased pressure on institutions already unable to provide adequate care.
NPMs should assess both the wording of drug laws and the human rights consequences of their implementation.
Healthcare for detained persons who use drugs
The Subcommittee identifies serious risks affecting detained persons who use drugs, including:
- Acute and painful withdrawal symptoms;
- Lack of effective detoxification programmes;
- Absence of specialized treatment;
- Lack of independent medical personnel;
- Inadequately trained healthcare staff;
- Delayed or denied medication;
- Unsafe administration of substitution treatments; and
- Deaths resulting from inadequate or inappropriate care.
NPMs should verify whether persons in detention receive healthcare equivalent to that available in the community.
Preventive monitoring should examine access to:
- Immediate medical assistance for withdrawal symptoms;
- Evidence-based detoxification;
- Appropriate medication;
- Specialist treatment;
- Independent medical assessment;
- Harm-reduction services;
- Transfer to specialist healthcare facilities when necessary;
- Post-release treatment and follow-up;
- Relapse-prevention support; and
- Social reintegration programmes.
Monitoring compulsory and private treatment centres
Drug-treatment and rehabilitation centres may constitute places of deprivation of liberty and therefore fall within NPM mandates.
This includes compulsory, private, informal and faith-based treatment facilities, as well as any centre from which a person is not genuinely free to leave.
NPMs should ensure that treatment is:
- Evidence-based;
- Holistic;
- Therapeutic;
- Voluntary;
- Delivered by appropriately trained interdisciplinary personnel; and
- Accompanied by education, vocational training and social reintegration.
They should also monitor and prevent:
- Forced treatment;
- Coercive techniques;
- Corporal punishment;
- Punitive regimes;
- Arbitrary confinement;
- Solitary confinement;
- Physical restraints;
- Deprivation of food or water; and
- Treatment without adequate medical oversight.
Children deprived of liberty
The mandate of an NPM extends to every place where children are or may be deprived of liberty, including children who have not been accused or convicted of an offence.
Relevant settings may include:
- Juvenile justice institutions;
- Police custody;
- Protection and care institutions;
- Educational and boarding institutions;
- Religious facilities;
- Immigration detention;
- Healthcare and treatment facilities; and
- Other settings where children are not free to leave.
The Subcommittee considers independent and regular monitoring of these places a vital safeguard for children’s access to justice, effective remedies and protection from torture and ill-treatment.
NPMs are particularly important because they can conduct more frequent and extensive visits than international monitoring bodies.
Disability-related and de facto deprivation of liberty
The absence of a formal detention order does not necessarily mean that a person is free.
Persons with disabilities may be effectively compelled to remain in an institution, residential arrangement, family home, religious community or other setting because appropriate support and alternatives are unavailable.
The Subcommittee describes this as disability-specific deprivation of liberty. NPMs should examine the person’s actual circumstances, including whether the individual can leave freely and whether dependence, coercion or lack of support effectively prevents departure.
Religious, educational and informal institutions
Religious affiliation or charitable status does not place an institution outside preventive oversight.
Institutions that provide shelter, education, care or “treatment” may fall within the NPM mandate when residents are not free to leave.
NPMs should examine risks including:
- Physical violence;
- Forced labour or begging;
- Sexual abuse;
- Deprivation of food or water;
- Restraint and isolation;
- Punitive practices;
- Absence of psychiatric or medical care;
- Arbitrary confinement; and
- Failure by public authorities to investigate reported violations.
States must regulate institutions that deprive persons of liberty, introduce safeguards against arbitrary detention and ensure regular independent monitoring.
Freedom of religion or belief in detention
NPM monitoring should also assess whether freedom of religion or belief is respected in places of deprivation of liberty.
Relevant matters include:
- Access to religious services;
- Access to religious books and materials;
- Opportunities for prayer and religious instruction;
- Respect for religious artefacts and symbols;
- Appropriate dietary arrangements;
- Equal treatment of different religious communities;
- Accommodation of religious festivals; and
- Respect for cultural, traditional and ancestral practices consistent with human rights standards.
Discriminatory restrictions on the exercise of religion or belief may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, particularly when faith is central to a detained person’s identity.
Traditional and informal justice systems
NPMs should also pay attention to traditional or informal justice arrangements when they result in deprivation of liberty or expose individuals to torture or ill-treatment.
Cultural, social or religious traditions cannot override international human rights obligations. Any traditional justice mechanism involving confinement or punishment must be subject to official judicial review and independent oversight.
Cooperation, capacity-building and regional networks
The report encourages cooperation among NPMs at the national, regional and international levels.
Such cooperation can support:
- Exchange of preventive methodologies;
- Development of common standards;
- Training and capacity-building;
- Institutional advocacy;
- Strengthening independence;
- Translation of prevention materials;
- Legislative reform;
- Greater public visibility; and
- Improved communication with the SPT.
The OPCAT Special Fund may finance projects supporting the establishment or strengthening of NPMs, implementation of SPT recommendations and educational activities proposed by NPMs.
NPMs are indispensable to the global prevention system
The Subcommittee describes NPMs as possessing unparalleled insight into national realities. Their permanent presence and ability to undertake frequent visits allow them to detect emerging risks, assess institutional practices and maintain sustained dialogue with authorities.
This role has become even more important as financial constraints limit the number of country visits the SPT can conduct. Strong national mechanisms are therefore indispensable to preserving the proactive and preventive character of the OPCAT system.
The report ultimately makes clear that an NPM should not exist only on paper. It must have genuine independence, sufficient resources, unrestricted access and a broad legal mandate covering every situation in which a person may be deprived of liberty.
هذه المقالة متاحة أيضًا بـ:
