Guidebook 1.4.6. Audiovisual Recording Main findings on the practice RELEVANT QUESTIONS: Audio or visual recordings of interrogations and hearings is not mandatory in numerous Member States and is often argued not to be carried out due to technical difficulties. However, it is difficult to prove potential violations of the rights of suspected and accused persons without audio-visual records.210 »» Was the interrogation audio or video recorded? • If not why? Not a legal requirement or was no technical equipment available? »» Were particular needs of persons in vulnerable situations (e.g., minors, persons with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities) adequately taken into account? International standards include numerous procedural safeguards for suspects and accused. A specific right that is, however, missing is audiovisual recordings of interrogations. Nevertheless, there is growing consensus that audio-visual recordings could not only strengthen procedural safeguards but also prevent torture and ill-treatment. Already in 2003 the Special Rapporteur on Torture stated that ‘all interrogation sessions should be recorded and preferably video-recorded, (…). Evidence from nonrecorded interrogations should be excluded from court proceedings.’205 An even more explicit reference to audio-visual recordings can be found in the 2016 report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture Méndez which calls for the establishment of a Universal Protocol for interviews.206 Méndez states that ‘The recording of interviews is a fundamental safeguard against torture, ill-treatment and coercion and ought to apply in the criminal justice system and in connection to any form of detention.’207 On a regional level, also CPT has urged states to implement audio-visual recordings of police interrogations.208 However, these international recommendations are only partly reflected in thunder EU instruments audio-visual recording is only provided for in the Recommendation on procedural safeguards for vulnerable suspected or accused persons and in the Directive on Children. Article 9 of the Directive on Children states that questionings of children should be audio-visually recorded if it is proportionate in the circumstances of the case and in the best interest of the child. It should be decided on a case by case basis and circumstances that might play a role are if the child is deprived of liberty and/ or if a lawyer is present.209 48 THE MANDATE AND ROLE OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS 2. THE MANDATE AND ROLE OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS 2.1. Mandate A key reference document for NHRIs is the ‘Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (the Paris Principles)’.211 The Paris Principles empower NHRIs to deal with all human rights in the widest sense, including the procedural rights of suspects and accused.212 In practice, however, the Paris Principles are phrased in very broad terms and give little practical guidance as to how to exercise their mandate. Additionally, certain UN human rights treaties formally require national mechanisms to play a role in the monitoring and implementation of the State’s treaty obligations, such as the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture (OPCAT) requiring to establish National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs; Article 17 OPCAT) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) requiring the establishment of independent mechanisms (Article 33 CRDP). Whilst the OPCAT and the CRPD formalize the role of NHRIs in the monitoring and implementation of the respective treaties (the treaties require States to establish such mechanisms and explicitly refer to the Paris Principles), the CRC does not, although there are relevant recommendations by the CRC Committee recognising the important role of NHRIs.213 Neither the Paris Principles nor the OPCAT or the CRPD impose a uniform model of national mechanisms, but leave it open to the national authorities to decide what model is the best suited in each particular national context.214 49