CAT/OP/NLD/1/Add.1
required only of NPM members themselves (and not of the observers). As the committees
visit the custodial institutions and other places of detention very regularly, sometimes even
weekly, their knowledge of what happens in these institutions on a day-to-day basis is
second to none. Through their monitoring and recommendations, the committees can assist
the Dutch NPM members in discharging their monitoring task, submitting proposals and
making comments and suggestions about existing or draft legislation.
5.
Together, the various NPM members and observers have all the powers which
NPMs are required to have under the OPCAT, namely:
• The power to regularly examine the treatment by the authorities of persons deprived
of their liberty with a view to strengthening, if necessary, their protection against
torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
• The power to make recommendations to the relevant authorities with the aim of
improving the treatment and the conditions of the persons deprived of their liberty
and to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, taking into consideration the relevant norms of the United Nations;
• The power to submit proposals and observations concerning existing or draft
legislation.
6.
The Dutch NPM has now been in existence for almost five years. During this period
the network has taken shape and consideration has been given to how the different
members and observers can cooperate most effectively. For example, the three national
inspectorates are now working together much more closely. In practice, however, it has
become apparent that the various NPM members have differing views on what degree of
collaboration is feasible within the network.
7.
This is mainly because the advisory role of the Security and Justice Inspectorate
(IVenJ), the Healthcare Inspectorate (IGZ) and the Youth Care Inspectorate (IJZ) is of a
different nature, due to their statutory tasks such as making recommendations with regard
to supervision, than the advisory task of the RSJ. This task of the RSJ is to make
recommendations in more general terms about benefit and necessity of policy and
legislation. Therefore, the advisory task of the RSJ is formally separated from the judicial
function of the RSJ. However the advisory role of the IVenJ, the IGZ and the IJZ is merely
supportive to their supervisory task.
8.
Following the Subcommittee’s visit and the discussion prompted by the report’s
recommendations, a careful reassessment took place on how to maximise the effectiveness
and continuity of the Dutch NPM. In light of this reassessment the Netherlands has chosen
to reform the NPM as follows. Each of the NPM members currently designated will
perform their NPM task separately, adhering to their own statutory roles.
9.
Given the independent role the visiting bodies enjoy based on the OPCAT, I ought
to exercise restraint and the Government should not prescribe the way in which the network
should cooperate. To do justice to the obligations stemming from OPCAT, the Government
believes the cooperation could at least consist of submitting research reports for the annual
report and briefing one another. These reciprocal briefings will supplement the work that
the NPM members and observers do individually. In most cases their individual powers are
limited to one specific field. So working together will enable the NPM members to look
beyond their own areas of responsibility and identify matters in need of attention.
10.
The requirements for the specific functions and the mandate of the NPM that stem
from the OPCAT are already contained in separate framework acts, rules and regulations
for each individual body. Therefore, a separate statutory basis is unnecessary. For an
explanation on how the separate bodies fulfil their NPM-tasks, I refer to the explanatory
3