Report of the HRD on the activities of the National Preventive Mechanism in Poland in 2011 – when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. The Convention does not define inhuman or degrading treatment, but the rich case law of the European Court of Human Rights narrows the meaning to a certain extent. According to the Court’s case law, treatment is degrading when it provokes a feeling of fear and humiliation leading to degradation. It may result in physical or psychological breakdown. Torture always represents inhuman and degrading treatment, and inhuman treatment is also degrading.3 One of the elements determining whether a given treatment is degrading in the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention is exceeding the minimum inconvenience threshold. The Court defines the threshold taking into account all circumstances of the case, e.g. age, sex, physical and psychological condition, duration, and motive. However, the list is not exhaustive. Each time the Court examines a breach of Article 3 of the Convention, the notions are defined more precisely. In one case, the Court pointed out that acts that are now considered as inhuman or degrading treatment, not torture, may be considered as torture in the future due to the increasing requirements in the area of human rights and fundamental freedoms in democratic societies.4 This report is the fourth one on the operation of the National Preventive Mechanism in Poland. The overriding objective of the Mechanism is to protect detainees from tortures and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In 2011, representatives of the NPM visited 89 various places of detention and found no evidence of using tortures in the Republic of Poland. However, they discovered in the places of detention they visited some instances of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which was very disturbing Nonetheless, I welcome the fact that many of the NPM recommendations issued following the visits were promptly implemented by the managers of places of detention, which will surely result in higher confidence of the public in the institutions, and will foster cooperation in the spirit of dialogue and understanding. The implementation of recommendations that requires significant financial outlays and systemic changes is monitored by the NPM staff on an ongoing basis. The National Preventive Mechanism still faces many challenges. To fulfil the basic purpose of the Mechanism, i.e. to prevent torture, it is essential to visit all places of detention in Poland (approximately 1,800) on a regular basis. The task is impossible to perform without adequate funds provided by the State. Sufficient funding is a prerequisite for increasing the number of visits and for including experts (physicians, psychologists) in the visiting teams. Due to limited funds, in 2011 the NPM objectives were executed only to a certain  Ireland v. Great Britain of 18 January 1978, A. 25, § 167; report Hurtado v. Switzerland of 8 July 1993, § 67, A. 280-A; verdict Price v. Great Britain of 10 July 2001, Chamber (Section III), complaint No 33394/96, § 24; Peers v. Greece of 19 April 2001, Chamber (Section II), complaint No 28524/95, § 74; after: M.A. Nowicki, Wokół Konwencji Europejskiej, Komentarz do Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka [European Convention. Commentary on the European Convention on Human Rights], p. 313, Warsaw 2010. 4  Verdict Kenaf v. France of 27 November 2003, Chamber (Section I), complaint No 65436/01, § 55, after: M.A. Nowicki, Wokół Konwencji Europejskiej, Komentarz do Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka [European Convention. Commentary on the European Convention on Human Rights], p. 318, Warsaw 2010. 3 8