CAT/OP/ESP/2
Recommendations relating to institutional issues
Visibility and independence
16.
The Subcommittee noted that the national preventive mechanism has not managed to
differentiate itself from the Ombudsman. In terms of visit methodology and dialogue, the
mechanism does not seem to have developed an effective strategy that distinguishes it from
the Ombudsman. As a result, detainees, authorities and civil society know little about it. In
most of the centres visited by the Subcommittee, there was no knowledge of the
mechanism’s mandate or any awareness of its existence.
17.
The Subcommittee recommends that the national preventive mechanism
develop a stronger strategy in order to differentiate its team from that of the Office of
the Ombudsman and to raise awareness of the specific nature of its mandate among
detainees, civil society organizations and authorities (see CAT/OP/12/5, para. 32). To
that end, the Subcommittee recommends, for example, organizing awareness
campaigns and other promotional activities, such as the production and distribution
of materials in various languages on the specific nature of the mandate and activities
of the national preventive mechanism, and considering the possibility of equipping
members of the mechanism with vests or other clothing of a specific colour or marked
with a symbol or logo, so as to clearly set them apart from members of the Office of
the Ombudsman.
18.
The Subcommittee noted that the national preventive mechanism has not been
allocated a specific and adequate budget, for its budget is included, without differentiation,
in the overall budget of the Office of the Ombudsman. This lack of a specific budget makes
it difficult for the mechanism to effectively fulfil its mandate to prevent torture and illtreatment throughout the country. In this connection, the Subcommittee considers that the
mechanism does not have a large enough team of professionals to perform its mandate on a
national scale. The Subcommittee emphasizes that the mechanism needs to recruit
specialists, such as doctors and psychologists, in order to build its capacities in an
interdisciplinary manner. It is important to note that the Subcommittee’s guidelines on
national preventive mechanisms state explicitly that the mechanism should enjoy complete
financial and operational autonomy when carrying out its functions under the Optional
Protocol (see CAT/OP/12/5, para. 12).
19.
The Subcommittee recommends that the national preventive mechanism
submit a proposal to the legislature and carry out advocacy and awareness-raising
initiatives in order to obtain a budget of its own that enables it to perform its mandate
more effectively. The Subcommittee further recommends that appropriate steps be
taken to set aside a separate budget for the national preventive mechanism within the
overall budget of the Office of the Ombudsman. In addition, it recommends that the
mechanism take the necessary measures to build an interdisciplinary team of
specialists and professionals that will enable it to perform its mandate for the
prevention of torture properly.
Recommendations relating to methodological issues
Interview methodology
20.
The Subcommittee noted several problems relating to interview technique. In some
cases, at the start of the interview, the interviewer failed to mention the principle of
confidentiality and the safeguards against the risk of reprisals. Furthermore, the interviewer
sometimes asked leading questions or interrupted the detainees. The mandate of the
national preventive mechanism was explained very briefly and no distinction was drawn
between the mandate of the Ombudsman and that of the mechanism; as a result, the
detainees believed them to be one and the same thing. The team sometimes failed to request
permission to take photographs of cells and to make sure that the interview took place out
of the earshot of guards. In some cases, no questions were asked about the legal
proceedings being brought against the interviewee or about his or her access to legal
counsel.
GE.18-14575
5