FACTSHEET video-recording of police vans is an important safeguard against ill-treatment. However, the SPT statement also underlines that video-recording is only effective at preventing torture if applied together with other preventive measures, including independent complaint mechanisms and adequate training for law enforcement officials. A large variety of CCTV devices can be used for monitoring purposes, including fixed cameras, rotating cameras, zoom lenses etc. Some cameras record the images while others merely transmit them to a monitor. The type of system in place, the quality of devices and of images, the number and location of cameras, whether or not the images are recorded, and the management of the data collected are all crucial aspects in determining the usefulness and legitimacy of CCTV monitoring in a given place. In this Factsheet, CCTV monitoring is understood to include both fixed cameras filming targeted spots and video- recording of police interrogations, including cameras that are not permanently installed but brought to the room for the occasion. 2. What are the main standards? Specific standards on the use of CCTV in places of detention are scarce, but in view of the growing and widespread use of video recording devices, they are likely to be developed in the future. Interestingly, existing standards only relate to video-recording of police interrogations – a practice that was already in place in various contexts long before the installation of CCTV monitoring systems – and are silent about its use for any other purposes. The UN Committee against Torture (CAT), in its General Comment No.2 on Article 2 of the Convention, stated that ‘[a]s new methods of prevention (eg. videotaping all interrogations […]) are discovered, tested and found effective, article 2 provides authority to build upon the remaining articles and to expand the scope of measures required to prevent torture’.3 In his 2003 Annual Report to the General Assembly, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture also stressed that ‘all interrogation sessions should be recorded and preferably video-recorded, and the identify of all persons present should be included in the records. Evidence from nonrecorded interrogations should be excluded from court proceedings’.4 “ The electronic (i.e. audio and/or video) recording of police interviews represents an important additional safeguard against the ill-treatment of detainees. The CPT [European Committee for the Prevention of Torture] is pleased to note that the introduction of such systems is under consideration in an increasing number of countries. Such a facility can provide a complete and authentic record of the interview process, thereby greatly facilitating the investigation of any allegations of ill-treatment. This is in the interest both of persons who have been illtreated by the police and of police officers confronted with unfounded allegations that they have engaged in physical ill-treatment or psychological pressure. Electronic recording of police interviews also reduces the opportunity for defendants to later falsely deny that they have made certain admissions. 5 ” The CPT has also recommended the use of videorecording devices in the context of the use of Electrical Discharge Weapons (EDW), ‘enabling the circumstances surrounding their use to be recorded’.6 3. Risk situations and aspects to be considered by monitoring bodies 3.1 Location and type of equipment The location and type of equipment are important aspects of any CCTV monitoring system. Even though a place of detention may appear to be well monitored by CCTV, it may in fact have poor equipment which does not properly fulfil its function or video-cameras that are poorly placed. Cleaning and maintaining the equipment is also essential, as dirty or damaged cameras may only provide the illusion of scrutiny and security. In practical terms, it is also essential that when footage is needed to ascertain facts, it is properly filed, labeled and easy to locate. It is also essential that it is of good quality. If monitoring bodies are told that footage is not available because equipment was broken or the footage poor, they should immediately raise this issue with the authorities, as such situations jeopardise the preventive effect of the use of cameras. There are no standards that specify where there should and should not be CCTV in a police station. Most monitoring and standard-setting bodies agree that 3. Article 2 of the Convention against Torture: ‘1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.’ 4. Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, 17 December 2002, E/CN.4/2003/68, para. 26(g). See also A/56/156, 3 July 2001, para. 34. 5. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) Standards, [CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 – Rev. 2011], para. 36, p9. 6. CPT Standards, op. cit. para. 77 and para. 82. 2 | Penal Reform International | Video recording in police custody: Addressing risk factors to prevent torture and ill-treatment

Select target paragraph3