58 A practical guide to the Istanbul Protocol – for lawyers ed by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights at its 32nd Ordinary Session. 17. In particular the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Articles 7 and 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. Torture is also prohibited under international humanitarian law, in particular common Article 3 to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and constitutes an international crime, both in its own right and as an element of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. See on the obligations of states parties under the Convention against Torture, REDRESS, Bringing the International Prohibition of Torture Home: National Implementation Guide for the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, January 2006. 18. See O.A.S. Treaty Series No. 67. 19. For a summary of findings, see REDRESS, Reparation For Torture: A Survey of Law and Practice in Thirty Selected Countries, April 2003, at p. 41. [REDRESS’ Audit] 20. “In order to supervise the strict observance of relevant laws and regulations, places of detention shall be visited regularly by qualified and experienced persons appointed by, and responsible to, a competent authority distinct from the authority directly in charge of the administration of the place of detention or imprisonment.” UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, Principle 29. 21. Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture, N. Rodley E/CN.4/1995/34,12 January 1995, paragraph 926 (c). 22. Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Adopted on 18 December 2002 at the fiftyseventh session of the General Assembly of the United Nations by resolution A/ RES/57/199. 23. State Parties are obliged to “maintain, designate or establish” under Art. 17 of the Optional Protocol to the CAT. For guidelines on establishing independent and effective national preventative mechanisms, see Preventing Torture at Home: A Guide to the Establishment of National Preventative Mechanisms, Amnesty International, IOR 51/004/2004, 1 May 2004. 24. Report of CAT on systematic practice of torture in Turkey under Article 20 of the UN Convention against Torture, A/48/44/ Add.1, 15 November 1993, para. 47. 25. CPT Standards: Substantive sections of the CPT’s General Reports, 12th General Report, Council of Europe, CPT/Inf (2002) Rev. 2003, para.40: “As from the outset of its activities, the CPT has advocated a trinity of rights for persons detained by the police: the rights of access to a lawyer and to a doctor and the right to have the fact of one’s detention notified to a relative or another third party of one’s choice.” Principles 15-19 of the Body of Principles. 26. Principle 16 (2) of the Body of Principles; Rule 38 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. The International Court of Justice has in the LaGrand Case (Germany v. United States of America), ICJ Reports 2001, para.77 and the Case Concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment of 31 March 2004, recognised that Article 36 (1) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations creates individual rights for the national concerned. 27. Adopted by General Assembly resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988. 28. As recognised by the UN Human Rights Committee, even when persons are under “administrative detention”, which is a detention without charge or trial, authorised by administrative order rather than by judicial decree (normally applied by States in emergencies) the legality of the detention should be subject to judicial review. [Communication No. 560/1993, CCPR/ C/59/D/560/1993, Hammel v. Madagascar, Communication No. 155/1983,CCPR/ C/29/D/155/1983; at paras 18.2 and 20; see also Torres v. Finland, Communication No. 291/1988, CCPR/C/38/D/291/1988; Vuolanne v. Finland, Communication No. 265/1987, CCPR/C/35/D/265/1987, Portorreal