CAT/OP/KAZ/1/Add.1 institutions covered by their mandate, and also result from concerns for the members’ own security and that of other persons involved in preventive activities. Paragraphs 26 and 27 The Subcommittee is greatly concerned about reported cases of criminal prosecution against members of the national preventive mechanism for work carried out under the mandate of the mechanism. According to the information available to the Subcommittee, a civil libel case was brought against two members of the mechanism. 64. The Subcommittee recommends that an impartial investigation into the circumstances surrounding the above-mentioned cases be conducted. In this connection, the Subcommittee would like to draw the State party’s attention to article 21 of the Optional Protocol. 65. Paragraphs 1 to 26 of the report do not contain any specific information to allow investigations of cases to be conducted. 66. There has not been a single case in the existence of the national preventive mechanism of its members being subject to criminal prosecution in connection with their work in the framework of its mandate. 67. Civil proceedings for libel have been brought by one individual against two members of the mechanism. The substance of the claim was related to inappropriate language used in respect of the head of an establishment covered by the mandate. Because of non-compliance with ethical standards by members of the regional team when the national preventive mechanism was first set up, the Coordinating Council decided to disband the national preventive mechanism group in Aktobe province, a move that was facilitated by recommendations made by international experts, including the members of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture. Paragraph 29 The Subcommittee learned that special urgent visits must be approved by the Commissioner, who also must approve any findings before their publication. This procedure may compromise the independence of the national preventive mechanism, as the Commissioner is appointed by the President and his or her activities are governed by presidential decree. The Subcommittee would like to recall the concern expressed by the Committee against Torture that the national preventive mechanism had not been able to undertake ad hoc visits owing to bureaucratic constraints. 68. In accordance with the laws and regulations governing the work of the national preventive mechanism, special preventive visits are carried out by teams without prior notice on the basis of allegations received concerning the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The decision to send a team to conduct a special preventive visit in an institution or organization subject to preventive visits is taken by the Human Rights Commissioner. 69. The national preventive mechanism in Kazakhstan works on the “Ombudsman plus” model, in which the Human Rights Commissioner plays a coordinating role, thus ensuring that there is constructive cooperation between the national preventive mechanism and government agencies; the Ombudsman takes responsibility for the conducting of unannounced visits and for the reputation of the mechanism in general. 70. In practice, special visits, conducted when allegations of torture are received, are actually agreed on with the Human Rights Commissioner. However, it must be pointed out that, over the whole existence of the national preventive mechanism, the Ombudsman has not refused any request for a special visit, the decisions have been taken quickly and the visits made promptly on the dates requested by members of the mechanism. This provision does not represent an obstacle to special visits. GE.19-01981 9