Annual Report 2010 by the National Preventive Mechanism against Torture bodies, which generally act in response to specific situations, and national preventive mechanisms, which have preventive functions”. Considerations of the SPT The 4th Annual Report (2011), published while the present document was concerning the concept of being prepared, considers a number of points to establish the concept of “preventive action” preventive action. Paragraph 67 states that “The NPM should complement rather than replace existing systems of oversight and its establishment should not preclude the creation or operation of other such complementary systems”; paragraph 105 stresses that “the prevention of torture and ill-treatment embraces — or should embrace — as many as possible of those things which in a given situation can contribute towards the lessening of the likelihood or risk of torture or ill-treatment occurring”; and subsection (c) of paragraph 107 alludes to the guiding principles of prevention, indicating that “[p]revention will include ensuring that a wide variety of procedural safeguards exist for those deprived of their liberty […]. Since the purpose of such safeguards is to reduce the likelihood or rise of torture or ill-treatment occurring, they are of relevance irrespective of whether there is any evidence of torture or ill-treatment actually taking place”. This report lists weaknesses Applying this doctrine to the case of Spain, attempts have been made to set up detected in terms of failure a working method aimed at detecting structural and procedural problems that to meet prevention criteria, which must be corrected might help torture or mistreatment to go unpunished, either by circumventing control systems or by hindering the thorough investigation and punishment of such behaviour. This explains the importance attributed below to issues such as CCTV surveillance, rigorous observance of the chain of custody, the examination of living conditions in different custodial areas, the provision of proper sanitation, proper identification of personnel, etc. This report lists various weaknesses detected in systems for dealing with persons in custody, which fail to meet the criteria for prevention and must therefore be corrected. Beyond this scope, determining whether torture or mistreatment exists in individual cases is a task for judges and courts of law. Complaints of Also in line with the doctrine drawn up by the SPT, the Ombudsman draws a mistreatment and distinction in the processing of complaints received concerning torture and preventive action mistreatment, which are dealt with by the competent areas depending on the matters involved in each case and are reported in the general reports published each year. The engagement of the NPM is not directly linked to individual cases but to the need to ensure proper monitoring of the overall system for deprivation of liberty. As mentioned in the SPT’s 4th Annual Report (2010, § 55) “The Optional Protocol does not establish a “complaints mechanism”, nor are the preventive inspection visits provided for thereunder intended to offer opportunities to investigate, examine and address the situation of particular individuals”. 18 THE OMBUDSMAN OF SPAIN