CAT/OP/NLD/1/Add.1
I. Introduction
Comments and recommendations — statutory basis
A.
1.
The Subcommittee notes in its report that, although the States parties are themselves
responsible for determining the institutional format of their national preventive mechanisms
(NPMs), it is imperative for this format to be fully compliant with all the requirements
specified in the OPCAT and the NPM Guidelines formulated on this basis. The
Subcommittee believes a separate legislative text for the NPM to be crucial in regulating
NPM-specific functions, the NPM mandate, the relationship between NPM members and
other bodies such as the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, and other issues to be
regulated in line with part IV of the OPCAT. The Subcommittee therefore recommends
enacting a separate statutory basis for the NPM. The legislation to be drafted for this
purpose should also regulate the privileges and immunities of NPM members and persons
working for the NPM, and guarantee protection for persons who provide information to the
NPM.
2.
To implement the OPCAT obligations, the following organisations were together
designated as the Dutch NPM in 2011: the Sanctions Implementation Inspectorate, the
Repatriation Supervisory Committee and the Public Order and Safety Inspectorate (these
three organisations have now been subsumed into the Security and Justice Inspectorate
(IVenJ)), the Healthcare Inspectorate (IGZ) and the Youth Care Inspectorate (IJZ) (as
independent supervisory authorities) and the Council for the Administration of Criminal
Justice and Protection of Juveniles (RSJ) (as an advisory body). The following
organisations have also been designated as NPM observers: the Focus Group for Custodial
Institutions Supervisory Committees (Klankbordgroep CvT’s), the National Centre for
Police Custody Supervision Committees (Landelijk Centrum Commissies van Toezicht op
de Arrestantenzorg), the Royal Military and Border Police (KMar) Custodial Institutions
Supervisory Committee and the National Ombudsman (NO) 1 (see the Explanatory
Memorandum on the Formation of the Dutch NPM). 2
3.
The OPCAT regulates the independence and powers of an NPM, but leaves the
States parties free to determine its institutional format. An important consideration in the
choice of format of the Dutch NPM is that the Netherlands already has a comprehensive
and effective system for monitoring the treatment of persons in custody. To avoid
increasing the regulatory burden, it was decided not to establish a new supervisory
authority but instead to rely on a number of existing prison visiting and advisory bodies.
The Netherlands has thus developed a mechanism that not only allows for visits to custodial
institutions but also ensures that those visits are conducted effectively by persons with
specific expertise. Moreover, NPM members and observers have ample knowledge to
advise the Government authorities on improving custody conditions, existing policy and
future legislation.
4.
An important role within the Dutch NPM is assigned to the Focus Group for
Custodial Institutions Supervisory Committees, the National Centre for Police Custody
National Supervision Committees and the KMar Custodial Institutions Supervisory
Committee as NPM observers. The supervisory committees in each branch consist of
specialists (with backgrounds in fields such as the judiciary, the legal and medical
professions, youth work and management) and have the expertise which is, in principle,
1
2
2
The National Ombudsman announced its withdrawal from the Dutch NPM network as an observer in
September 2014.
Parliamentary Papers 31 797 (R1871), no. 1/A.