44. Intimidation or retaliatory action against a detained person for seeking to communicate or for having communicated with the CPT may not only violate the human rights of such persons, but it also strikes, in all cases, at the very heart of the preventive mechanism embodied by the Committee. It is without any doubt one of the most serious failures of co-operation under Article 3 of the Convention establishing the CPT.4 In this context, the Committee and its delegations have made a point of placing the responsibility for preventing any act of reprisal after visits on the national authorities. On many occasions, the CPT has made it clear that any intimidation or retaliatory action against a detained person before or after contact with one of its delegations may also result in the Committee exercising its power to make a public statement under Article 10, paragraph 2, of the Convention. 45. Ukraine ofers a powerful illustration of success stories but also of failures in addressing the issue. The Ukrainian authorities have shown that, with determination and constant vigilance, including from the highest political level, much can be achieved. Regrettably, the CPT’s fndings have also shown that, on a number of occasions, detained persons have had to sufer intimidation or reprisals, sometimes in their most severe forms. By way of example, a Committee delegation 4. In the majority of the states parties to the Convention, any such action in relation to communications with the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT) or the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) established under the Optional Protocol of the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) would also constitute a breach of international obligations (cf. Articles 15 and 21 (1) of the OPCAT). General Report of the CPT, 2013-2014 ► Page 22 was struck by the testimony of a prisoner it met for the second time in late 2012. He had allegedly been subjected to severe beatings after a previous visit to the establishment and been made to shout to other inmates – while blows were being inficted upon him – that he would never again complain to the CPT. Due to the seriousness and prevalence of the problem, the Committee decided in March 2013 to open the procedure enabling it to make a public statement in relation to this matter. Ukraine has since remained under close scrutiny. 46. The CPT is doing its utmost to reduce the risks of intimidation and reprisals, including by interviewing detained persons in private (as provided for in Article 8, paragraph 3, of the Convention). In the Committee’s view, it is essential that, when carrying out their tasks, all international and national monitoring bodies should, as far as possible, interact with each other, to ensure that no cases of intimidation or reprisal are left undetected.5 However, they may well be fghting a losing battle if not all the relevant authorities are committed to taking efective action, through combining preventive, dissuasive and repressive measures. In particular, it must be made clear to all staf working in places of detention that the highest authorities will remain vigilant to ensure that every person who wishes to communicate or has communicated with the Committee will not be subjected to any kind of intimidation or reprisals and that the confdentiality of any such communication will be strictly 5. See the “public statement” issued by the Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT) on 6 February 2014 and the briefng paper published by the APT on this matter (for further details, see the APT’s website: http://www.apt.ch).