28 Torture. Méndez emphasised that torture and ill-treatment is still taking place around the world. States are also becoming increasingly involved in activities in other countries. When states operate outside their borders, whether in connection with military activity, border controls, deprivation of liberty or peacekeeping operations, they have the same responsibility to honour their commitments under the UN Convention against Torture as they do on their own territory. All states have a duty to prevent, prohibit and punish torture in every area under their own jurisdiction, regardless of where in the world the acts take place or who is responsible for them The consequences for prevention of torture and ill-treatment The Parliamentary Ombudsman has also highlighted a lack of clarity with respect to carrying out visits to prisons abroad. The Ministry presumed, among other things, that the Parliamentary Ombudsman should be able to carry out visits under its mandate to a prison abroad rented by the Norwegian. However, the consultation paper of 30 January contained no discussion of the Norwegian NPM’s relationship NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN National Preventive Mechanism against Torture and Ill-Treatment ANNUAL REPORT 2015 with the NPM of the ’receiving state’ under OPCAT, the relationship with the authorities of the ’receiving state’ and the role they exercise in relation to the inmates, or other factors of importance to carrying out preventive visits in another state. The UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, SPT, has an advisory role in relation to the NPMs. SPT has issued a statement on how preventive work should be carried out if a state enters into an agreement with another state on sending people there for detention purposes. It must be ensured that the NPM in the ’sending state’ has the legal and practical possibility to visit the inmates in prison in the ’receiving state’ in accordance with OPCAT and to make recommendations and enter into dialogue with the authorities in both countries. At the same time, the NPM in the ’receiving state’ shall have the same possibility to carry out visits, make recommendations and enter into dialogue with the authorities of both states. The Ombudsman recognises both legal and practical challenges associated with entering into dialogue on follow-up with other states’ authorities (about matters outside Norway’s jurisdiction), and also recognises that this will be a key factor in fulfilling the OPCAT mandate. For example, with respect to inmates’ access to health care services, which according to the agreement are provided by the Dutch authorities. It is unclear how the Norwegian NPM will be able to effectively investigate the health care services provided during a visit to Norgerhaven prison, and make recommendations and carry out follow-up afterwards.