Table 3: National Preventive Mechanisms set up under Article 17 of OPCAT, 14 EU Member States Member State National Preventive Mechanism Austria Austrian Ombudsman Board (Volksanwaltschaft) Bulgaria The Ombudsman of the Republic of Bulgaria (ORB) Denmark Danish Parliamentary Ombudsman (Folketingets Ombudsmand) Finland Parliamentary Ombudsman France Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté Germany National Agency for the Prevention of Torture Greece Greek Ombudsman Hungary Commissioner for Fundamental Rights Italy National Guarantor for the Rights of Persons Detained and Deprived of their Liberty The Netherlands Inspectorate for Security and Justice (Coordinating institution of six different entities) Poland Commissioner for Human Rights Slovakia OPCAT not signed Spain Ombudsman (Defensor del Pueblo) Sweden Chancellor of Justice Parliamentary Ombudsmen (Riksdagens ombudsmän) Source: FRA, 2017 Complaint mechanisms These preventative measures are not always considered to be effective. For example, according to the NGO Rights International Spain, an independent oversight mechanism with powers to supervise police actions is lacking in Spain. 92 Similarly, the Dutch section of Amnesty International notes that the office of the Inspectorate of Security and Justice is not sufficiently independent or transparent. 93 Concerning Finland, in January 2017, the UN Committee against Torture noted that “while the Parliamentary Ombudsman has been entrusted with the task of serving as the national preventive mechanism, insufficient financial or human resources have been allocated to the Ombudsman and […] the mechanism may not have the human resources necessary to carry out its mandate”. 94 Criminal law avenues are not easily accessible to victims who do not speak the host country language and who may not have easy access to legal support. For example, civil society representatives in France noted that the normal legal avenues are in practice not very effective: complaints are often dismissed with no further action. 95 This situation can be mitigated by setting up effective complaint mechanisms and complaints boxes in reception facilities. Complaint mechanisms can be internal to the police or the immigration service (for example, in Denmark or Hungary). 96 Such internal mechanisms, though important, should also be complemented by the possibility to complain to independent bodies. 11