MONITORING PLACES OF DETENTION : A PRACTICAL GUIDE 40 reports, frequently precisely because of that independence and the perception that this makes the findings more frank. However, the legal basis for monitoring can often be weak, based on a written agreement with the different ministries, or even individual minister, concerned, which leaves the monitors dependent on the political will of the authorities. In some countries, lack of funding even for travel costs can make the task of consistent monitoring almost impossible for such independent groups. 2. VISITING MECHANISMS AT THE INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL LEVEL The practice of international bodies conducting visits to places of detention is a relatively recent development. The ICRC was the first to receive such a mandate, in the context of armed conflicts, to visit prisoners of war. Later, the mandate was extended through the right of initiative, allowing it to visit detainees, with the agreement of the concerned government, during internal troubles or tensions. ICRC’s recommendations may also cover common-law detainees. Most existing international mechanisms entitled to visit places of detention function essentially in a reactive manner, and carry out on the spot visits following receipt of information of torture or illtreatment (e.g. UN Special Rapporteurs, CAT). Few have the mandate to regularly and proactively carry out visits (e.g. Special Rapporteur on prisons and conditions of detention in Africa). These mechanisms can only carry out on-site visits with the authorisation of the State concerned. Two international bodies work on a radically different basis. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) was, in 1987, the first body set up specifically to carry out preventive visits to places of detention. Upon ratification of the Convention, State Parties accept visits of the CPT at any time to any place where persons are deprived of their liberty. The Sub-Committee to the Committee