The United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) has called on States to ensure that their National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) are genuinely independent, adequately funded and capable of accessing every place where people may be deprived of their liberty.
In its nineteenth annual report, covering its activities during 2025, the Subcommittee stressed that formally designating an institution as an NPM is not enough to fulfil the obligations arising from the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT). States have a continuing duty to maintain the mechanism, protect its independence and provide the human, financial and technical resources needed for it to operate effectively.
The report also refers directly to Lebanon. It records that Lebanon submitted a written response concerning measures taken or planned to implement recommendations arising from an SPT visit. Representatives of Lebanon’s NPM also participated in an Asia-Pacific regional dialogue on the definition of places of deprivation of liberty and the practical challenges mechanisms face in accessing them.
Independence must be guaranteed in practice
The Subcommittee explained that States are free to choose the institutional model most appropriate to their national context. An NPM may be a newly established body, an existing institution or a specialized unit within a national human rights institution.
Whatever model is selected, it must satisfy OPCAT’s institutional and operational requirements. These include the independence of the mechanism and its personnel, functional and financial autonomy, unrestricted access to places of deprivation of liberty and the authority to interview persons privately and make recommendations to the competent authorities.
The Subcommittee cautioned that NPMs must not be treated as identical to national human rights institutions. A human rights commission or ombudsperson usually exercises broad protection, investigation and complaints-handling functions. An NPM, by contrast, has a specialized and forward-looking mandate: identifying and addressing the conditions, practices and institutional weaknesses that create a risk of torture or ill-treatment before violations occur or recur.
Separate unit and protected budget
When the NPM is located within an institution that exercises several mandates, its preventive functions should be placed within a separate unit or department with its own staff and ring-fenced budget.
Its identity and mandate must remain visible to public authorities, persons deprived of liberty, civil society and the public. The NPM must also be able to determine its work programme, select the institutions it visits, conduct private interviews and issue findings without interference.
According to the report, assigning the NPM mandate to an existing institution does not allow the State to expect that institution to perform additional preventive duties using its existing resources. Funding must be allocated specifically for the NPM’s work.
State obligations do not end with designation. They continue for as long as the mechanism operates, regardless of any additional mandates performed by the institution hosting it.
Recommendations must be based on UN standards
Under article 19 of OPCAT, NPMs may make recommendations intended to improve the treatment and conditions of persons deprived of liberty and prevent torture and other ill-treatment.
The Subcommittee clarified that these recommendations, as well as the mechanism’s broader working approach, must be grounded in relevant United Nations standards, including specialized human rights treaties.
Authorities have a corresponding obligation to examine the NPM’s recommendations and engage in substantive dialogue regarding their implementation. Effective follow-up should identify the measures taken or planned, the institutions responsible and the timetable for implementation.
The report also encourages the development of monitoring tools that allow NPMs to systematically track whether their recommendations have been accepted and implemented.
Access must extend beyond prisons
The Subcommittee reiterated that the term “places of deprivation of liberty” must be interpreted broadly, in accordance with its general comment No. 1 of 2024.
An NPM mandate cannot be limited to prisons and police stations. It extends to every place under State jurisdiction or control where a person is not legally or practically free to leave.
Depending on the circumstances, this may include:
- Psychiatric and healthcare institutions;
- Drug-treatment and rehabilitation centres;
- Migration and reception facilities;
- Social-care institutions;
- Facilities for older persons;
- Institutions for persons with disabilities;
- Childcare and protection institutions;
- Court holding cells;
- Religious or educational institutions;
- Privately operated facilities; and
- Informal or otherwise unrecognized places of confinement.
The legal classification or administrative name of an institution is not decisive. The relevant question is whether people held there are genuinely free to leave.
The report notes that NPMs continue to face practical access problems linked to narrow interpretations of deprivation of liberty and insufficient awareness of the Subcommittee’s guidance among public authorities.
Drug policies require preventive monitoring
The report continues the Subcommittee’s examination of the relationship between drug policies and torture prevention.
NPMs should assess how drug laws and their implementation affect arrest, pretrial detention, prison overcrowding, healthcare, withdrawal treatment, harm reduction, rehabilitation and compulsory treatment.
Their mandate should cover public and private drug-treatment centres whenever individuals are not free to leave. Monitoring should examine whether treatment is voluntary, evidence-based and provided by appropriately trained professionals and whether residents are exposed to coercion, punishment or arbitrary confinement.
The Subcommittee emphasized that drug policies must be firmly anchored in human rights and that NPMs have an important role in examining their practical consequences for persons deprived of liberty.
Protection against reprisals
The report also recognizes the risks of intimidation and reprisals faced by NPM members while performing their work.
In 2025, the Chairs of the United Nations human rights treaty bodies decided to include NPM members among the actors who may be affected by reprisals under the San José Guidelines.
States must therefore protect NPM members and experts from retaliation, threats, surveillance, professional sanctions or interference related to their visits, findings or cooperation with international mechanisms.
Protection must also extend to detained persons, relatives, institutional staff, civil society representatives and others who communicate or cooperate with the NPM.
Civil society participation is essential
The Subcommittee considers cooperation with civil society essential to the establishment and effective functioning of NPMs.
Civil society organizations can help identify overlooked places of deprivation of liberty, document systemic risks, contribute specialized expertise and monitor implementation of recommendations.
Their participation is particularly important if a State considers changing the institution designated as its NPM. Any establishment or redesignation process must be open, transparent and inclusive and involve a broad range of stakeholders.
The report warns that excluding civil society may undermine the mechanism’s legitimacy and weaken its future effectiveness.
Redesignation cannot weaken the mechanism
The effectiveness of an NPM should be regularly assessed by both the State and the mechanism itself, taking the Subcommittee’s views into account.
In exceptional circumstances, an assessment may result in the designation of a different institution. However, the Subcommittee stressed that such a change cannot justify limiting the NPM’s powers, narrowing its mandate, reducing its independence or cutting its human and financial resources.
A redesignation must preserve continuity of the preventive mandate and comply fully with OPCAT. The State should also formally inform the Subcommittee of the change.
Lebanon’s engagement with the preventive system
Lebanon appears in the report in two contexts.
First, the Subcommittee records that Lebanon submitted a written response in 2025 concerning measures taken or planned to implement recommendations arising from an SPT visit. Under OPCAT, such responses form the basis of continuing dialogue with the Subcommittee.
The report identifies three other States that requested publication of their responses but does not indicate that Lebanon requested publication of its reply.
Second, representatives of Lebanon’s NPM participated in the Asia-Pacific regional webinar held in December 2025. Discussions addressed the broad definition of places of deprivation of liberty, problems NPMs encounter in gaining access and the level of awareness among State authorities of general comment No. 1.
The report’s recommendations are particularly relevant to Lebanon’s institutional framework, where the national preventive function is exercised within the National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture.
They underscore the importance of ensuring that the preventive mechanism has:
- A distinct and visible institutional identity;
- A dedicated and ring-fenced budget;
- Specialized personnel;
- Properly remunerated members and experts;
- Access to interdisciplinary expertise;
- Operational autonomy;
- Unrestricted access to all places of deprivation of liberty;
- Protection against intimidation and reprisals; and
- The capacity to monitor implementation of its recommendations.
Financial crisis heightens the importance of NPMs
The United Nations liquidity crisis severely affected the Subcommittee’s work during 2025. It held only two sessions and completed four of the eight country visits initially planned.
The Subcommittee warned that postponed visits have direct consequences for persons deprived of liberty, whose voices may remain unheard and whose conditions may go unmonitored by the international body specifically created for that purpose.
Against this background, the report describes NPMs as essential partners situated at the core of OPCAT’s preventive architecture. Their continuous national presence has become even more important as the Subcommittee’s international visiting capacity faces severe financial constraints.
The report’s central message is that an NPM must be effective in practice, not merely established on paper. Genuine prevention requires independence, adequate resources, professional expertise, unrestricted access, protection from reprisals and sustained engagement by authorities with the mechanism’s findings and recommendations.
هذه المقالة متاحة أيضًا بـ:
