Strasbourg, 06/11/2012 (Agence Europe) - In its 22nd annual report published on 6 November, the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) focuses on penitentiaries and calls for the creation of “national preventive mechanisms” (NPMs). This would bring them into line with an optional protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT), already ratified by 36 Council of Europe member nations.
Between 1 August 2011 and 31 July 2012, the CPT carried out 18 visits to different member states of the Council of Europe. Ten states (Andorra, Azerbaijan, Estonia, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Portugal, the Federation of Russia, Slovenia and Switzerland) came under the annual programmes of regular visits, and eight states (Armenia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Malta, Spain, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey and Ukraine) were to receive ad hoc visits as and when the committee deemed this to be necessary. Letif Huseynov of Azerbaijan, who heads the CPT, says one might be surprised that a country such as Belgium could be the subject of an ad hoc visit, but, he explained, the Bureau was motivated by alarming information received regarding over-crowding in that country's prisons and the conditions of detention at the prison in Forest. Furthermore, he explained, strikes by prison staff in the various penitentiaries are worrying, especially as this has resulted in the death of a number of detainees.
Generally speaking, the conditions to which persons deprived of liberty are subjected are at the core of the 22nd CPT report published on Tuesday. This essentially covers prisons but also detention facilities for foreigners, for example on the island of Malta where many migrants arrive. The CPT has no power of constraint. Its visits correspond to a pro-active, non-judiciary mechanism, a prevention mechanism based on partnership with the states in some ways. It is not a matter of condemning but of preventing irregularities that could then become the subject of complaints filed with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The CPT, which was created in 1987 by the Council of Europe convention for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading sentences or treatment, benefits from extended powers during its visits. Its representatives have access to the territory of the country concerned, they may move about there unrestricted, go to any place where persons deprived of their liberty are held, including in psychiatric establishments and military detention areas; speak without witnesses to their interlocutors and freely enter into contact with anyone who is likely to provide useful information. Also, the members of the CPT are able to converse with high ranking figures in each of the countries concerned so that the problems are directly tackled with those in charge in order to find solutions. This was in fact what was done in Turkey on 10 February 2012 concerning the situation of the Kurd leader, Abdulah Ocalan, who was held in a high security prison, type F, on the island of Imrali. Visits and discussion take place according to two fundamental principles - confidentiality and cooperation and, on that basis, reports on the visits are in principle confidential. Nonetheless, most of the states, with the notable exception of Russia, have chosen to make the texts public, which is a first sign of their intention to implement the recommendations put forward and to follow the advice given by the CPT.
The report published on Monday calls for national monitoring bodies on places of deprivation of liberty to be set in place. This approach, moreover, fell within the context of a protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture which took effect in 2006, ratified by 36 of the 47 member nations of the Council of Europe. Twenty-six countries (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Poland, the Republic of Moldova, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and the United Kingdom) have also set in place or designated NPMs. Huseynov said: “Monitoring mechanisms at national level can intervene frequently and rapidly, and so are able to make an enormous contribution to the prevention of ill-treatment. That is why it is essential that independent structures of this kind are set up without delay in all countries. They will also be a valuable source of information for the CPT and can bolster the monitoring work the committee is doing, in particular by following up the implementation of its recommendations”. He regretted, however, that “in some of the CPT visits, we have identified that NPMs which have already been established lack the resources to carry out their tasks effectively. States should ensure these bodies are equipped with adequate human and material resources and enjoy full access to any place of deprivation of liberty, without any restrictions”. (VL/transl.jl)