CAT/OP/PAN/1
recommendations would help pave the way for a transparent and productive national
dialogue on the issues dealt with in the report.
11.
The Subcommittee recommends that the State party follow the example of
other States parties by making the report public, in accordance with article 16 (2) of
the Optional Protocol.
12.
The Subcommittee wishes to draw the State party’s attention to the Special Fund
established pursuant to article 26 of the Optional Protocol. The recommendations contained
in reports that are made public can serve as a basis for an application by the State party for
project grants from the Fund.4
II. National preventive mechanism
13.
On ratifying the Optional Protocol on 2 June 2011, the State party, in accordance
with article 17 of the Protocol, assumed an international obligation to establish a national
preventive mechanism within one year. The Subcommittee notes with concern that the State
party’s fulfilment of that obligation is more than five years overdue.
14.
This situation is all the more striking in that very few States parties have
experienced similar delays. In this regard, at its twenty-eighth session (in February 2016),
the Subcommittee decided to publish a list of the States parties whose compliance with
their obligation to set up a national preventive mechanism was more than three years
overdue. Panama is among them. 5
15.
It should also be recalled that, in 2015, during the second universal periodic review
of Panama, the Government accepted a number of recommendations concerning the prompt
establishment of a national preventive mechanism. 6
16.
The Subcommittee noted with appreciation the adoption of Act No. 6 of 22 February
2017 on the establishment of the national preventive mechanism, which reflects the
standards required under the Optional Protocol and follows the Subcommittee’s guidelines
on national preventive mechanisms. 7 The Act also provides for the selection of members of
the committee, the director and the deputy director of the national preventive mechanism
and the establishment by the Ombudsman of an inter-agency working group to draft a
decree containing regulations pertaining to the Act. The Subcommittee nonetheless wishes
to express concern about the points outlined below.
Financial and functional independence
17.
Although the national preventive mechanism was established under article 1 of Act
No. 6 as a national directorate attached to the Ombudsman’s Office that must act with
functional independence and independence of judgment, the Subcommittee recalls that the
Optional Protocol states unambiguously that the State party must make specific resources
available for the work of the national preventive mechanism with a view to guaranteeing its
functional independence (art. 18 (1)). 8 The Subcommittee’s guidelines on national
preventive mechanisms state expressly that the national preventive mechanism “should
enjoy complete financial and operational autonomy when carrying out its functions under
the Optional Protocol”.9
18.
The Subcommittee recommends that, in order to guarantee the functional
independence of the national preventive mechanism, the authorities should ensure
that it is not in any way subordinate to the Ombudsman’s Office. The organizational
structure of the Ombudsman’s Office should reflect the requirements set forth in the
Optional Protocol; namely, that the national preventive mechanism should have
4
5
6
7
8
9
4
Véase www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/OPCAT/Fund/Pages/SpecialFund.aspx.
Véase www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/OPCAT/Pages/Article17.aspx.
A/HRC/30/7, párrs. 90.16 a 90.19.
CAT/OP/12/5.
Ibid., párr. 8.
Ibid., párr. 12.
GE.18-12640