CAT/OP/BRA/3 B. Institutional framework for the prevention of torture at state level 92. The impact and effectiveness of the National System to Prevent and Combat Torture envisioned by the federal law relies significantly on the establishment of a network of preventive mechanisms at the state level,16 which will function in collaboration with each other and with the national preventive mechanism as the central body. The Human Rights Secretariat will promote the creation of such local mechanisms. 17 Furthermore, decree 8.154 containing regulations for the implementation of the national preventive mechanism legislation provides that there will be a voluntary transfer of funds by the Human Rights Secretariat to the states to support their investment in torture prevention. 18 Nevertheless, no such transfers had come to the Subcommittee’s attention at the time of the visit. Civil society organizations raised concerns regarding whether the priority given by the Federal Government to this issue was genuine, given the fact that the enactment of the National System was to be accompanied by adequate funding to enable proper implementation of the policy. The Subcommittee observed that despite the large network of actors, including civil society organizations and public institutions, that have been promoting the implementation of the Optional Protocol in different states of Brazil, the number of states that have actually established a local preventive mechanism remains very small. The adoption of the federal law did not have the expected impact: since August 2013, only two states have enacted the relevant legislation.19 93. The Subcommittee welcomes the fact that the Human Rights Secretariat, through its Department to Combat Torture, has undertaken some initiatives to promote the creation and functioning of preventive mechanisms at the state level, engaging in dialogue with state governments to encourage them to fulfil their obligation under the Optional Protocol. However, these efforts have not been systematic, and have not produced substantial results. 94. The Subcommittee regrets the lack of political will to create local preventive mechanisms, which is also linked to the failure to ensure adequate financial resources to the mechanisms. The Subcommittee was informed that although some states had enacted specific legislation creating local preventive mechanisms, 20 the mechanisms have not been provided with the necessary financial resources to permit their establishment. The Subcommittee greatly respects the efforts of the Federal Government to further a system of state preventive mechanisms, and avails itself of this opportunity to reiterate its willingness to assist it as actively as the resources permit. 95. In this connection, the Subcommittee draws to the State party’s attention that, according to article 29 of the Optional Protocol, the provisions of the Optional Protocol shall extend to all parts of federal States, without any limitations or exceptions. The Subcommittee therefore recommends that the authorities take all appropriate measures to ensure the establishment and effective functioning of preventive mechanisms in all the states of the country. 96. The Subcommittee calls on all state governments that have not done so to take action to establish preventive mechanisms at state level, as required by the Optional Protocol, that are functionally independent and with sufficient resources to allow them to carry out their functions effectively, as foreseen by federal law 12.847. 97. The Subcommittee recommends that the Federal Government, through the federal Human Rights Secretariat, take a more proactive approach as part of an 16 17 18 19 20 Article 8 (5) of federal law 12.847. Article 13 of federal law 12.847. Article 20 of decree 8.154. Rondônia and Minas Gerais. Such as Alagoas in 2009 and Paraíba in 2011. 19