all other places from which persons are prevented from leaving for similar purposes fall within the scope of the OPCAT mandate and thus within the sphere of oversight of both the SPT and of National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) established within the OPCAT framework. II. 6. Numerous NPMs have asked the SPT for further advice regarding their response to this situation. Naturally, as autonomous bodies, NPMs are free to determine how best to respond to the challenges posed by the pandemic within their respective jurisdictions. The SPT remains available to respond to any specific request for guidance that it may be asked to give. The SPT is aware that a number of valuable statements have already been issued by various global and regional and regional organisations which it commends to the consideration of States Parties and NPMs.3,4 The purpose of the present Advice is also to offer general guidance within the framework of the OPCAT for all those responsible for, and undertaking preventive visits to, places of deprivation of liberty. 7. The SPT would emphasise that whilst the manner in which preventive visiting is conducted will almost certainly be affected by necessary measures taken in the interests of public health, this does not mean that preventive visiting should cease. On the contrary, the potential exposure to the risk of ill-treatment faced by those in places of detention may be heightened as a consequence of such public health measures taken. The SPT considers that NPMs should continue to undertake visits of a preventive nature, respecting necessary limitations on the manner in which their visits are undertaken. It is particularly important at this time that NPMs ensure that effective measures are taken to reduce the possibility of detainees suffering forms of inhuman and degrading treatment as a result of the very real pressures which detention systems and those responsible for them now face. Measures to be taken by authorities concerning all places of deprivation of liberty, including detention facilities, immigration detention, closed refugee camps, psychiatric hospitals and other medical settings 8. It is axiomatic that the State is responsible for the healthcare of those whom it holds in custody and that it has a duty of care to its detention and health-care staff. The Nelson Mandela Rules make it clear that ‘… Prisoners should enjoy the same standards of health care that are available in the community, and should have access to necessary health-care services free of charge without discrimination on the grounds of their legal status’.5 Coronavirus, adopted at its 40th session (10 to 14 February 2020), available at https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/OPCAT/NPM/2020.03.03-Advice_UK_NPM.pdf 3 See, for example, ‘Preparedness, prevention and control of COVID-19 in prisons and other places of detention - Interim guidance, 15 March 2020’ issued by the WHO and the ‘Statement of principles relating to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in the context of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic issues by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture’ on 20 March 2020 CPT/Inf (2020)13 (19th March 2020). 4 See CPT/Inf (2020)13 (19th March 2020) available a20www.coe.int/en/web/cpt/-/covid-19-councilof-europe-anti-torture-committee-issues-statement-of-principles-relating-to-the-treatment-of-personsdeprived-of-their-liberty5 United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), UN Doc A/RES/70/175 (17 December 2015), Rule 24(1). 2

Select target paragraph3