case of the offence of torture.
28. The SPT notes that the discrepancy between the definition of torture contained in the Paraguayan Criminal Code and
that contained in article 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (hereafter the “ Convention against Torture ” ) creates a loophole for impunity. The SPT
regrets that the recent revision of the Criminal Code has not modified the definition of the offence of torture and
recommends the early adoption of the legislative measures necessary to align Paraguayan legislation with international
treaties on torture, especially article 1 of the Convention against Torture.
29.Absence of a criminal offence of torture in the Military Criminal Code. The SPT ascertained that, despite the
recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur on Torture, the Military Criminal Code (Act No. 843 of 1980) still contains no
offence of torture. The SPT recommends correcting this lacuna by including in the Code a criminal offence in conformity
with article 1 of the Convention against Torture and by establishing penalties commensurate with the seriousness of the
offence.
B.Institutional context
30.There is an abundance of State and civil society institutions addressing human rights in Paraguay. However, the SPT noted that
their combined efforts have not had the desired effect of preventing torture and ill-treatment. This situation, coupled with the serious
shortcomings found by the SPT in terms of commonplace, systemic practice, means that there are significant problems in ensuring
prevention.
31.Inter-institutional commissions. There are three inter-institutional commissions in Paraguay, set up to visit places where persons
deprived of their liberty are, or may be, found: they are the inter-institutional commissions responsible respectively for visiting prisons,
visiting and monitoring juvenile detention centres and visiting military barracks. These commissions are inter-institutional in the sense
that they are composed of representatives of State entities, international bodies and civil society. They represent informal, ad hoc
institutions, lacking a sound legal basis and independent funding, which limits their action. Furthermore, these commissions do not visit
persons detained in police stations or psychiatric hospitals.
32. Despite the aforementioned restrictions, the SPT considers that the commissions concerned play a valuable role,
occasionally fulfilling oversight functions that belong properly to the public authorities, and accordingly recommends that
the State should grant them the necessary financial and logistic support to carry out regular visits to places housing
persons deprived of their liberty. The SPT further recommends that the functions, experience and knowledge acquired
by these commissions should be taken into account by the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM), once it has been
established.
33.Office of the Ombudsman . The SPT is concerned about the number of critical comments it has received on the way in which the
Ombudsman’s Office carries out its duties in respect of detention centres. It is also concerned at the repeated allegations concerning
the Office’s failure to deal with the complaints submitted to it. As an independent and autonomous body, the Office of the
Ombudsman is called upon to play a very active role in preventing torture and ill-treatment, particularly in respect of persons deprived
of their liberty. Consequently, the SPT recommends that the Office of the Ombudsman:
(a) Carry out periodic visits and develop techniques for thorough inspections — with the emphasis on personal contact
with detainees and direct viewing of places of detention — so as to ascertain the living conditions and treatment of those
deprived of their liberty;
(b) Deal promptly and effectively with the complaints its receives concerning human rights violations;
(c) Maintain a database to compile systematic information about the type of complaints received, the results of
investigations undertaken, and the recommendations made;
(d) Fulfil its legal terms of reference by reporting the human rights violations it discovers to the Public Prosecutor ’ s
Office.
34.National Police. According to the information provided by the authorities, there is no established system for supervising the
National Police nor any regulatory standards regarding conditions of detention or treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in the
country’s over 1,200 police stations. This is consistent with the statements of police personnel interviewed by the SPT in its visits to
police stations, who said that they had to date received no such supervisory visit. The SPD was informed that the National Police��s
Department of Public Order and Security must have authority in the matter. However, neither the Department nor any other branch of
this institution exercises supervisory functions with regard to the conditions of detention or the treatment of persons deprived of their
liberty in police stations.
35. The SPT recommends that the Department of Public Order and Security or some similar office, whether existing or to
be established, should regularly supervise the conditions of detention of persons deprived of their liberty in police
stations, and should submit reports with recommendations for the continual improvement of those conditions. It should
likewise ensure proper follow-up of those recommendations.
36. The SPT also wishes to receive information from the State party on the number of complaints of torture or illtreatment received by the National Police against its members in the last five years, as well as the present status of
those reports, including the disciplinary measures taken.
37.Judiciary. The judiciary can provide effective oversight of the legality of detention and of the situation of persons deprived of their