1.3 Practical challenges for detention monitors Given their highly political and emotional dimensions, terrorism and VERLT are sensitive topics, and that sensitivity and the associated secrecy, coupled with the specificities of prison regimes in the VERLT context, create challenges for detention monitors. Prison officers may not perceive persons deprived of their liberty on terrorism- and violent extremism-related charges and offences as deserving of the protection of their human rights. This context may result in a more difficult – even hostile – environment during a monitoring visit. Moreover, external scrutiny may not be welcome in a field that remains highly sensitive and dominated by security concerns. Given the potential human rights implications of state actions and approaches in this field, the external scrutiny provided by independent monitors is clearly necessary. Monitoring bodies should dedicate adequate capacity and resources to addressing VERLT-related issues, irrespective of their specific mandate. At the same time, the existing legal framework in any particular situation will invariably have a bearing on the issue of access to detention facilities, detainees and information. While NPMs may draw on their extensive powers as enshrined in the OPCAT, other monitors may face greater challenges. Nonetheless, legal limitations regarding the access for detention monitors to places, people and information can be overcome or, at a minimum, mitigated. Access to facilities, detainees and documentation Having only limited access to relevant facilities and detainees – either because this is not included in their mandates or an inability to access accurate information – can be a challenge both for NPMs and civil society monitors when working on VERLT-related 100 issues. Gaining access to places of detention remains problematic in some OSCE participating 101 States, and monitors need to be prepared to face opposition in attempts to monitor detention facilities where (suspected) violent extremist prisoners are held. Monitors may require a higher security clearance to access such places, due to the introduction of 102 counter-terrorism measures. Some NPMs have noted that it is difficult to maintain a comprehensive list of all places of deprivation of liberty, especially in the context of counter-terrorism, as ad hoc detention 103 or holding places are sometimes used. Nevertheless, a number of detention monitoring 100 See for example: UNODC Regional Office for Central America and the Caribbean in Panama (ROPAN), “Working Paper Series on Prison Reform Working Paper 1: Civil Society and Prisons: The “Invisible Bars” Challenge”, February 2014. 101 The SPT, for instance, decided to suspend its May 2016 visit to Ukraine after being denied access to several facilities under the jurisdiction of the State Security Service of Ukraine. 102 Open Society Justice Initiative & University of Bristol Human Rights Implementation Centre, “The Challenges to the Preventive Monitoring under OPCAT in the Context of Counter-Terrorism and Anti-Radicalization Measures”, p. 4. 103 Ibid., p. 3. 27