E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.5 page 11 deficiencies in the appointments process, which do not comply with the Paris Principles, the Special Rapporteur shares the view that NHRC is nonetheless a vital institution for promoting and protecting human rights in Nepal, and that the independence and effectiveness of the current Commission should be judged on its performance. To this end, the Special Rapporteur expresses appreciation for the frank discussion he held with the commissioners in relation to torture and ill-treatment in Nepal. Indeed, in a detailed presentation to the Special Rapporteur based on their monitoring and casework, the commissioners were very forthcoming in describing the systematic nature of torture practised by the security forces in Nepal. Impunity 26. The Special Rapporteur was deeply concerned about the prevailing culture of impunity for torture in Nepal, especially the emphasis on compensation to victims as opposed to criminal sanctions against the perpetrators. Time and again, officials would cite the 1996 Compensation Relating to Torture Act as being an effective preventive and deterrent measure against the practice of torture. However, the Act does not contain a definition of torture in line with article 1 of the Convention, nor does it provide for effective remedies; it does not provide for the criminalization of torture or the imposition of punishment commensurate with the gravity of torture. Moreover, officials would repeatedly cite the 1991 Nepal Treaty Act stating that the provisions of the Convention apply by default in case of inconsistent domestic law, but no evidence exists that its provisions have been invoked in the courts to prosecute perpetrators. In the Government’s own report a number of examples, such as suspensions, cautions and demotions, are cited in respect of action taken to prevent torture and punish perpetrators, thereby to demonstrate commitment by the security forces to protecting human rights and humanitarian law standards.5 In the view of the Special Rapporteur, the sanction of “departmental action” against perpetrators is so grossly inadequate that any preventive or deterrent effect envisaged by the Act is meaningless in practice. Moreover, since CRT came into force, in only one case to date has compensation actually been paid, despite several decisions to award compensation. In general, from the interviews he conducted, the Special Rapporteur found a lack of confidence in the justice system and the rule of law on the part of victims and their families. The Special Rapporteur is of the view that, if the Act does anything, it actually prevents and discourages torture victims from seeking and receiving justice for torture and ill-treatment. Visits 27. Preventive measures such as regular unannounced visits to all places of detention by independent monitors do not occur because of varying restrictions for security reasons of access to NGOs and the NHRC, although the OHCHR-Nepal so far does have unrestricted access. In April 2005, the ICRC ceased seeking access to detainees held in military facilities after it encountered problems visiting camps and barracks under the authority of the RNA, in accordance with its standard criteria. III. CONDITIONS OF DETENTION 28. The conditions of detention in the facilities the Special Rapporteur visited were generally poor, especially in terms of overcrowding and sanitation and acknowledges that the lack of adequate resources may be partly to blame. However, the conditions in Hanuman Dhoka Police