INTRODUCTION 1 With regards to the extent of this definition when translated into operational practice, the Sub-Committee on the Prevention of Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or Punishment (SPT) has issued a comment stating “that as expansive an interpretation as possible should be taken in order to maximise the preventive impact of the work of the NPM” (National Preventive Mechanisms). “Any place in which a person is deprived of liberty (in the sense of not being free to leave), or where (…) a person might be being deprived of their liberty, should fall within the scope of the OPCAT if it relates to a situation in which the State either exercises, or might be expected to exercise a regulatory function”. 1 Places where children can be deprived of liberty Any kind of establishment – penal, correctional, educational, protective, social, therapeutic, medical, administrative – public or private – from which a child is not allowed to leave at will. For the purpose of this Guide, we will refer to the term “deprivation of liberty” rather than ‘detention’ in order to broaden the focus of this Guide to include closed establishments that are not necessarily prison-like or that involve incarceration. The following terms will be used equally throughout the Guide to designate the places where children can be deprived of their liberty: “facility, institution, centre and establishment”. See – Section 2.1. – p.23 Exclusions: Any place where the child’s right to leave the establishment is not restricted are not covered by the scope of this Guide. Independent monitoring mechanisms Bodies that undertake monitoring of facilities where people are deprived of their liberty through on-site (announced or unannounced) visits. 1  See the SPT’s comment on the scope of the article 4 of the OPCAT 15