CAT/OP/PRT/1
facilities, educational centres, police detention facilities and psychiatric institutions. In
accordance with the resolution of the Council of Ministers, the ombudsperson also has the
power to make recommendations to the relevant authorities and may submit proposals and
observations on existing legislation or draft legislation relating to matters under the
Optional Protocol.3
13.
In order to fulfil the functions of the national preventive mechanism, the
ombudsperson is assisted by a support structure 4 that assists in performing the relevant
tasks – namely, identifying places of detention, planning and conducting visits and
obtaining and analysing data. The support structure is composed of an Advisory Council, a
Steering Committee and a Visitors Team. The Advisory Council is comprised of 12
members: the presiding ombudsperson; 6 members (1 member each) appointed by the
Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Rights, Freedoms and Guarantees, the
High Council of the Judiciary, the High Council of the Public Prosecution Service, the Bar
Association, the Medical Association and the Portuguese Psychologists Association; 3
members of high ethical and civic standing appointed by the ombudsperson; and 2 members
representing civil society organizations with an activity relevant to the aim of the national
preventive mechanism. The Steering Committee is composed of three persons and develops
the annual visiting plan of the national preventive mechanism. For most of the visits, one
member of the Steering Committee is present. The Visitors Team, which carries out visits
to places of detention, is composed of nine staff members of the ombudsperson’s office
specially appointed for that purpose on account of their experience and knowledge.5
14.
Due to the absence of targeted budget support, the ombudsperson has had to allocate
her regular resources to perform the tasks of the national preventive mechanism. The
mandate of the national preventive mechanism is not clearly separated from the mandate of
the national human rights institution, nor does the national preventive mechanism have a
dedicated ring-fenced budget for its work. The Subcommittee observes that there are no
explicit legislative provisions regarding earmarked funding for the national preventive
mechanism. In that connection, the Subcommittee emphasizes that the lack of budgetary
independence may negatively affect the independent functioning of the mechanism.
15.
While there is no single model for a national preventive mechanism that is compliant
with the Optional Protocol, it is clear that when national human rights institutions are
designated as national preventive mechanisms their particular structures must be examined
in order to ensure that the mechanism can fulfil its mandate. Experience suggests that a
national preventive mechanism can most effectively exercise its mandate when it is located
within a separate unit of the national human rights institution. In Portugal this does not
appear to be the case. Moreover, the national preventive mechanism of Portugal should
have full operational autonomy with regard to its staff, but it does not. The mechanism does
not have any staff working exclusively for it. All the members of the team combine their
national preventive mechanism functions with their national human rights institution duties.
That situation makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for the mechanism to take a
systematic and planned approach to torture prevention.
16.
The Subcommittee is concerned that although the ombudsperson was designated as
the national preventive mechanism sufficient additional resources, including human
resources, have not been allocated for this purpose. The Subcommittee reminds the State
party that pursuant to article 18 (3) of the Optional Protocol States parties are required to
make available the necessary resources for the functioning of the national preventive
mechanism. Without proper resources, including in terms of staffing, the mechanism cannot
fulfil its preventive mandate properly and adequately.
17.
The Subcommittee is also concerned that the authorities have not allocated the
necessary resources because they do not consider that the national preventive mechanism
3
4
5
4
See Portuguese Ombudsman: National Preventive Mechanism Report to the Parliament – 2015
(Lisbon, 2016), sect. 1.2. Available from www.provedor-jus.pt/site/public/archive/doc/NPM
_2015_ING__0.pdf.
Ibid., sect. 1.3. See also www.provedor-jus.pt/site/public/archive/doc/Regulamento_EMNP_0.pdf
(in Portuguese).
National Preventive Mechanism Report to the Parliament – 2015, para. 1.3.