phenomena. For example, in the absence of access to places of deprivation of liberty, one field operation surveyed ex-prisoners to establish how they had been treated during their detention. OSCE field operations are also approached by individuals alleging torture or ill-treatment and are able to draw some conclusions based on the credibility, consistency and frequency of such cases. Building strong partnerships with the relevant authorities was also identified as being a key part of a torture-prevention strategy. Official bodies mentioned by field operations as involved in various ways in the issue of torture prevention included Justice and Interior ministries (sometimes through committees with specific responsibility for issues such as human rights, law enforcement or the implementation of relevant international conventions); various police inspection/investigation mechanisms; and the office of the prosecutor and national human rights institutions, particularly Ombudsman offices. The presence of both international and national organizations was also judged to be a factor in strengthening torture prevention. Field operations in a small number of countries reported that there were no national organizations focusing on the issue of torture and ill-treatment, and that this was sometimes matched by a lack of activity by international organizations. Regional patterns can be observed with regard to the involvement of both national and international organizations, with Freedom House and Penal Reform International reported to be significant actors in Central Asia. Other international organizations mentioned regularly as working on torture prevention in the regions under consideration were the ICRC, the International Organization for Migration, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Amnesty International. National Helsinki Committees were reported to be present in all of the regions under consideration. Some Central Asian countries have a number of other national organizations involved in anti-torture activity. National bodies often specialized in particular aspects of torture prevention, including assisting in individual cases of torture allegations, sometimes through the use of the individual complaint mechanisms of international bodies, lobbying for the ratification of international instruments, legislative review, monitoring of detention centres, and the rehabilitation of torture victims. The field operations were also asked whether it was more effective to integrate activities to prevent torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment into criminal justice reform activities. The response from seven field operations was that this was “always” the best approach, while six said that this was the case “sometimes”. The remainder did not reply, possibly because they were not involved in projects of this type. None of the field operations answered “never”. In those cases where the answer strongly favoured this kind of integration, the reasons given tended to be more general than specific, with the suggestion that such an approach had the advantage of not stigmatizing states as one example. Some field operations identified specific factors for consideration when choosing an approach to implementing anti-torture activities. It was noted, for example, that some instances of torture occur in places where persons are deprived of their liberty but are not part of the criminal justice system, such as psychiatric institutions, military 25