E/CN.4/2002/76 page 12 I would recall that the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action stipulates that “States should abrogate legislation leading to impunity for those responsible for grave violations of human rights such as torture and prosecute such violations, thereby providing a firm basis for the rule of law.” I would stress the duty of States to bring to justice perpetrators of torture as an integral part of the victims’ right to reparation. In my report, I have drawn the attention of the General Assembly to the jurisprudence of various international and regional human rights monitoring bodies on that issue. In the light of this jurisprudence suggesting that the prohibition of amnesties leading to impunity for serious human rights violations has become a rule of customary international law, I express my opposition to the passing, application and non-revocation of amnesty laws (including laws in the name of national reconciliation, the consolidation of democracy and peace, and respect for human rights), which prevent torturers from being brought to justice and hence contribute to a culture of impunity. As before, I would call on States to refrain from granting or acquiescing in impunity at the national level, inter alia by the granting of amnesties, such impunity itself constituting a violation of international law. Prevention and transparency One of the main factors constituting a condition of impunity de facto is the prevalence of the opportunity to commit the crime of torture in the first place. In that respect, one of my main recommendations would be external supervision of all places of detention by independent officials, such as judges, prosecutors, ombudsmen and national or human rights commissions, as well as by civil society. I would also recommend the presence of the person’s lawyer at interrogation sessions. I would support monitoring by independent monitoring institutions, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Committee on the Prevention of Torture under the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the mechanism contemplated by the draft optional protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, should it be adopted with at least the powers enjoyed by the two mechanisms I just referred to. I am convinced that there needs to be a radical transformation of assumptions in international society about the nature of deprivation of liberty. The basic paradigm, taken for granted over at least a century, is that prisons, police stations and the like are closed and secret places, with activities inside hidden from public view. The international standards referred to are conceived of as often unwelcome exceptions to the general norm of opacity, merely the occasional ray of light piercing the pervasive darkness. What is needed is to replace the paradigm of opacity by one of transparency. The assumption should be one of open access to all places of deprivation of liberty. Of course, there will have to be regulations to safeguard the security of the institution and individuals within it, and measures to safeguard their privacy and dignity. But those regulations and measures will be the exception, having to be justified as such; the rule will be openness. Finally, I would encourage States to reflect upon the revised recommendations that I have included in the last chapter of my report as a useful tool in efforts to combat torture.