work: visiting places of deprivation of liberty to examine current practice and system features in order to identify where the gaps in the
protection exist and which safeguards require strengthening; and assisting in the development and functioning of bodies designated by
States Parties to carry out regular visits – the national preventive mechanisms (NPMs). The SPT focus is empirical – on what actually
happens and what practical improvements are needed to prevent ill-treatment.
3.Under the OPCAT, a State Party is obliged to allow visits by the SPT to any places under its jurisdiction and control where
persons are or may be deprived of their liberty, either by virtue of an order given by a public authority or at its instigation or with its
consent or acquiescence. States Parties further undertake to grant the SPT unrestricted access to all information concerning persons
deprived of their liberty and to all information referring to the treatment of those persons as well as their conditions of detention. They
are also obliged to grant the SPT private interviews with persons deprived of liberty without witnesses. It is for the SPT to choose the
places it wants to visit and the persons it wants to interview. Similar powers are to be granted to NPMs, in accordance with the
OPCAT. The work of the SPT is guided by the principles of confidentiality, impartiality, non-selectivity, universality and objectivity, in
accordance with article 2, paragraph 3, of the OPCAT.
4.Whether or not ill-treatment occurs in practice, there is always a need for States to be vigilant in order to prevent ill-treatment. The
scope of preventive work is large, encompassing any form of abuse of people deprived of their liberty which, if unchecked, could
grow into torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The SPT’s preventive approach is forward looking.
In examining examples of both good and bad practice, the SPT seeks to build upon existing protections and to eliminate or reduce to
a minimum the possibilities for abuse.
5.The prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment proceeds from the respect for the
fundamental human rights of persons deprived of their liberty in whatever form of custody they may find themselves. The visits of the
SPT to States Parties centre on determining which factors may contribute to, or inhibit, situations conducive to ill-treatment, in order
to make recommendations to prevent ill-treatment from happening or from recurring. In this sense, rather than merely checking or
verifying whether torture has occurred, the SPT’s ultimate aim is to anticipate and forestall the commission of torture by persuading
States Parties to improve the system of functioning safeguards to prevent all forms of ill-treatment.
Introduction
6.In accordance with articles 1 and 11 of the OPCAT, the SPT visited Benin from Saturday 17 May until Monday 26 May 2008.
7.In this first visit to Benin, the delegation of the SPT examined the state of progress in developing the national preventive mechanism
and focused on the situation, as far as protection against ill-treatment, of people deprived of their liberty in police facilities,
gendarmeries and prisons.
8.The delegation consisted of the following members of the SPT: Ms. Silvia Casale (head of delegation), Mr. Hans Draminsky
Petersen, Mr. Zbigniew Lasocik, and Mr. Leopoldo Torres Boursault. Pursuant to article 13, paragraph 3, of the OPCAT, the
delegation was accompanied by Dr. Jonathan Beynon, expert.
9.The SPT members were assisted by Mr. Patrice Gillibert (Secretary to the SPT), Ms. Estelle Askew-Renaut, and Ms. Nosy
Ramamonjisoa, staff members of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), as well as by
three interpreters.
10.During its visit to Benin, the delegation reviewed the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty and made observations and
conducted private interviews with staff and people deprived of their liberty in various types of institutions: five police stations, five
gendarmeries, and three prisons.
11.In addition to visiting places of deprivation of liberty, the SPT had discussions with public authorities, including ministerial, judicial
and prosecutorial interlocutors, and members of civil society in order to gain an overview of the legal framework regarding the
administration of criminal justice and places of deprivation of liberty and of how the system was functioning in practice. The delegation
met with representatives of the Supreme Court and with the Constitutional Court in plenary session. It also visited the Palais de
Justice in Abomey and spoke with its Prosecutor (Procureur) in order to discuss the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty
by the judiciary.
12.At the end of the visit, the delegation presented its preliminary observations concerning the visit to the Beninese authorities. Those
preliminary observations, like the visit report, are confidential. The SPT acknowledges receipt of the note verbale of 7 November
2008, attaching the government of Benin’s preliminary replies to its observations. The SPT has considered these replies and included
clarification on a number of issues in this report.
13.The following report on the first SPT visit to Benin, produced in accordance with article 16 of the OPCAT, sets out the findings of
the delegation and the SPT’s observations and recommendations concerning the treatment of people deprived of their liberty, in order
to improve the situation as regards the protection of such persons from all forms of ill-treatment. The visit report is an important
element of the dialogue between the SPT and the Beninese authorities aimed at preventing torture and other cruel inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. In principle, the report is confidential until such time as the authorities of Benin request
publication.
14.One of the crucial factors inhibiting ill-treatment is the existence of a fully functioning system of independent visits to monitor all
places where person may be deprived of their liberty. For this reason, the first section of the report is devoted to a discussion of the
development of the national preventive mechanism (NPM) in Benin.
15.The second section of the visit report looks at the legal and institutional framework in Benin from the perspective of prevention of
torture. Situations favourable to torture may arise from the lack of an appropriate legal and institutional framework guaranteeing the