Competences of the AOB Monitoring and control of institutions and facilities in accordance with OPCAT OPCAT It is the duty of the AOB and the Commissions it has established to monitor and control all venues where persons “are deprived or can be deprived of their freedom as a result of a decision by a government agency or at its behest or with its explicit or implicit agreement” (see Art. 4 OPCAT). Due this broad mandate, the AOB is assuming a figure of more than 4,000 public and private institutions and facilities, which are to be visited, monitored and controlled by the Commissions on a regular basis either with or without prior notification. Questions regarding jurisdiction with respect to youth welfare Several Laender expressed doubts about the authority of the AOB with respect to socio-pedagogical facilities operated by youth welfare authorities. It should be noted, however, that the Constitutional Committee of the National Council determined during its deliberations that „socio-pedagogical facilities where measures under youth welfare law are being implemented are also subject to the jurisdiction of the AOB in this context”. In its statement, the AOB also pointed out that measures by a government youth welfare authority that restrict the residents’ freedom must be classified pursuant to Art. 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and/or Art. 2 of the Federal Constitutional Act on the Protection of Personal Freedom. This is also consistent with the relevant international commentaries on the UN-Convention against Torture (CAT) that also consider care homes, children’s homes, foster homes, homes for the young and other family residences as encompassed under the OPCAT mandate. Basic services and benefits for asylum seekers The AOB has also approached the Human Rights Advisory Council with the question of whether facilities providing a basic level of social services for asylum seekers are in and of themselves subject to monitoring and control. In the opinion of the AOB, jurisdiction exists only if, in the case of unlawful acts of detention, it must be presumed that there is explicit or at least implicit agreement on the part of the competent authorities. 36