PREAMBLE Torture is one of the gravest violations of fundamental human rights. Any violation of the freedom from torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment constitutes, at the same time, an assault on human dignity. According to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, the state, regardless of complainant’s attitude, may not evade compliance with this prohibition, even at times of war or any other threat to national security1. Prevention constitutes the foundation for building a torture-free and inhumane treatmentfree culture of any state. The significance of prevention was noticed by the United Nations which in 1992 appointed a working group responsible for preparing the draft of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT). The Protocol was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 18 December 2002 and it entered into force in 2006. Prevention is a brand-new approach to counteracting torture. In line with the OPCAT the main emphasis should be placed on diagnosing the threats and not on interventions conducted post factum, i.e. after the violation of the rights of the person deprived of freedom. This is the purpose of the inspection visits to places of detention conducted by the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture (NMPT). In the aftermath of such visits the representatives of the NMPT indicate areas which require improvement both, in terms of individual as well as systemic problems. In compliance with the OPCAT, torture prevention is not only limited to the appointment of the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture. It also consists in cooperation with the UN Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT). For the Optional Protocol to be truly effective all those entities must maintain a constructive dialogue. Therefore, it is not the objective of the Preventive Mechanism to criticize the authorities responsible for the places of detention but to offer support in joint efforts aimed at enhancing the protection of persons deprived of liberty against torture and other, inhuman treatment. Recommendations issued by the NMPT after inspection visits strive to support the activities undertaken by the entities responsible for the operation of places of detention. The present document constitutes the twelfth report on the activities of the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture in Poland. It presents advisory activities undertaken by the Team, challenges that we faced when implementing our mandate as well as the most significant observations from preventive visits, including systemic problems. I hope that you will find the present Report of the Polish Commissioner for Human Rights on the activities of the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture in 2019 an important source of information and that it will contribute to improvement and proper operation of different types of places of detention in our country in compliance with international standards. Adam Bodnar, Ph.D. Commissioner for Human Rights 1 Ireland vs. Great Britain, ruling of 18 January 1987, application no. 5310/71. Report of the Commissioner for Human Rights on the activities of the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture in Poland in 2019 5