CAT/OP/ROU/1
the attention of the authorities to the Subcommittee’s policy on reprisals in relation to its
visiting mandate (CAT/OP/6/Rev.1).
9.
The Subcommittee categorically condemns any act of reprisal. It stresses that
persons who provide information to or cooperate with national or international
agencies or institutions should not be punished or otherwise penalized for having done
so. The Subcommittee requests that it be kept informed of the steps taken by the State
party to prevent and investigate any possible acts of reprisal. It also requests the State
party to provide in its reply detailed information on what it has done to prevent the
possibility of reprisals against anyone who was visited by, met with or provided
information to the Subcommittee during the course of the delegation’s visit, as well as
information on measures taken to act upon such allegations.
IV. Implementation of the Optional Protocol: the national
preventive mechanism
10.
Romania ratified the Optional Protocol on 2 July 2009 and upon ratification
postponed its obligations under part IV for a period of three years. In 2012, the State party
requested, under article 24 (2) of the Optional Protocol, an extension of this postponement
for an additional two years.1 Emergency ordinance No. 48 of 2014, designating the People’s
Advocate as the national preventive mechanism, was approved by the Romanian parliament
through Law No. 181 of 28 December 2014, which also amended the founding legislation
of the People’s Advocate (Law No. 35 of 1997) by adding the national preventive
mechanism role.
11.
When performing activities specific to the mandate of prevention of torture, the
members of the team conducting visits to places of detention are independent. 2 The
Subcommittee observes that, other than general provisions stating that the People’s
Advocate is independent from other public authorities, there was no reference to the
independence of the national preventive mechanism or its members.
12.
The Subcommittee notes with concern that the lack of budgetary independence has a
generally negative impact on the independent functioning of the national preventive
mechanism. As its funding comes under the general budget of the office of the People’s
Advocate, accessing sufficient ring-fenced allocations for the mechanism remains a
challenge, hampering its ability to function. For example, the mechanism cannot cover
transportation costs related to detention visits nor can staff undertake any other forms of
activity.
13.
The Subcommittee reminds the State party that the provision of adequate
financial and human resources to the national preventive mechanism constitutes a
legal obligation under article 18 (3) of the Optional Protocol, and wishes to be
informed about the steps the State party intends to take to make such provision.
14.
The Subcommittee recommends that the Government of Romania provide the
human resources and adequate funding necessary for the effective functioning of the
national preventive mechanism through a specific budget line, and grant the
mechanism the institutional autonomy to use its resources. The necessary resources
should be provided to permit the effective operation of the mechanism, which should
enjoy complete financial and operational autonomy when carrying out its functions
under the Optional Protocol. The funds should be predictable, to allow the national
preventive mechanism to develop its annual workplan and visits well in advance and
to plan its cooperation with other partners.
15.
According to information received during the visit, the national preventive
mechanism carries out the following types of visits: ex officio, on the basis of an annual
visit plan or unannounced; on the basis of a petition; or upon becoming aware of a situation
1
2
4
Note verbale dated 9 July 2012 from the Permanent Mission of Romania to the United Nations Office
and other international organizations in Geneva.
Law No. 35 of 1997, as amended, art. 295 (3).