CAT/OP/ESP/2
11.
The national preventive mechanism is responsible for conducting periodic visits to
places of deprivation of liberty that are overseen by various public authorities, in order to
make recommendations with a view to preventing torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. The mechanism recognizes that it is competent to
conduct regular unannounced visits to places such as National Police stations, Civil Guard
barracks, autonomous community police stations, local police facilities, military
establishments, municipal detention centres, judicial detention centres, juvenile detention
centres, migrant detention centres, border control centres with police facilities in airports,
ports and land border areas, hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, nursing homes, ships on which
stowaways are detained and means of transport used by State security forces and agencies
to transfer persons deprived of their liberty.
12.
During its regular visit to Spain, the Subcommittee held two meetings with members
of the national preventive mechanism and took part in a joint visit to a detention centre.1
The centre was chosen on the basis of a proposal made by the Subcommittee’s delegation,
which was accepted by the mechanism, even though it had made arrangements to visit a
different place of detention. During the visit, the Subcommittee members played a
secondary role, while members of the mechanism led the delegation and oversaw all
activities undertaken in the course of the visit.
III. Recommendations to the national preventive mechanism
13.
During the joint visit, the Subcommittee members were able to observe the working
methods used by the national preventive mechanism and, in general, were left with a good
impression of its work. One of the main positive aspects was the adaptability of the
mechanism team, especially when confronted with the Subcommittee’s last-minute request
to conduct the joint visit to a different centre than the one initially selected by the
mechanism. The Subcommittee was also struck by the hard work and professionalism of
the members of the mechanism and the experience and aptitude of its external experts,
especially those responsible for analysing medical histories. The Subcommittee considers
that the team carrying out the visit made appropriate use of modern means of
communication, which made it easier — especially in such a large prison — to rapidly
compare information and situations in a coordinated manner, simultaneously or
successively.
14.
In the course of the visit, the Subcommittee members noted that the national
preventive mechanism informed the prison authorities about the methodology that would be
followed during the visit; requested statistics (such as the average time taken to rise through
the ranks and the number of detainees under the various regimes); and requested
information about the use of physical restraints, access to psychiatric care and safeguards
for detainees under each regime. The Subcommittee considers it relevant that the
mechanism requested permission from the prison authorities to be able to watch and
analyse videos of incidents recorded using the video recording system.
15.
The Subcommittee members were also informed that various documents on the
prevention of torture had been produced. One which stood out was the 2017 Guide to Good
Practices in the Use of Physical Restraints; the Subcommittee considers this document to be
very comprehensive and encourages the national preventive mechanism to distribute it
widely. At the end of the visit, the Subcommittee members raised some of their main
concerns, which are detailed in the present report, at a meeting with members of the
national preventive mechanism and the advisory board.
1
4
Soto del Real Prison in Madrid.
GE.18-14575