INTRODUCTION “The National Preventive Mechanisms represent the most significant single measure which States can take to prevent torture and ill-treatment occurring over time.” Ms. Aisha Shujune Muhammad, Vice-Chair, United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture Among the many measures taken to prevent torture, the establishment of National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) has recently gained prominence. While monitoring bodies have existed in the past, the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (adopted in 2002, in force in 2006)1 has introduced a particular model of preventive monitoring. It combines monitoring at international level (by the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) )2 and at national level (by NPMs) through unannounced visits to places where individuals are deprived of liberty. Each of these mechanisms and the interplay between them has the potential for reducing incidences of torture and ill-treatment in the States parties to the Optional Protocol. Given that visits by the SPT are unlikely to be frequent, NPMs play a particularly important role in translating the political will to prevent torture and ill-treatment into practical action “on the ground”, as the frequency of their visits will complement the periodic visits undertaken by the SPT. The States parties to the Optional Protocol3 are obliged to set up, designate or maintain NPMs within one year of ratification or accession to the Protocol. Compliance with the Optional Protocol includes not only the establishment of NPMs but also ensuring their effective functioning. NPMs should be able to exercise their mandates so as to contribute effectively to the prevention of torture and ill-treatment. This includes the States’ legal obligation of ensuring that members of NPMs have the relevant expertise, that these mechanisms have (i) sufficient financial and human resources, (ii) unrestricted access to all places where persons are, or may be, deprived of liberty, and (iii) the ability to work without threats or sanctions being made against them or against those who work with them or provide them with relevant information.4 Above all, NPMs should enjoy true functional independence. Recommendations made by NPMs need to be considered by the relevant authorities and other addressees and acted upon. NPMs should have clear and effective strategies in this regard. This Guide seeks to respond to key questions frequently asked about NPMs, and to explain the four core functions of the mechanisms – visiting, providing advice, enhancing cooperation and educating – which are key to their effective functioning. The Guide is complemented by checklists and other guidance, which offer practical tools to aid their performance. 1 Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted on 18 December 2002 at the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly of the United Nations by resolution A/RES/57/199, entered into force on 22 June 2006 available at: http://www.ohchr.org/ EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/OPCAT.aspx. 2 The Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of the Committee against Torture (hereinafter “the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture” or “SPT”) is a treaty body established by article 5 of the Optional Protocol. According to article 11 of the Optional Protocol, it has the mandate to visit the places of detention and make recommendations to States parties concerning the protection of persons deprived of their liberty against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 3 There are 88 State parties and 14 Signatories of the OPCAT as of 29 May 2018. The latest information is available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-9-b&chapter=4&clang=_en. 4 Articles 18, 19, 20, 21 of the OPCAT. INTRODUCTION I 1