A/56/156 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. 36. This proposed reversal of our conceptions is, of course, motivated by a desire to prevent human rights violations within the Special Rapporteur’s mandate, and the Special Rapporteur expects that it will give rise to doubts and misgivings, especially among law enforcement and penitentiary authorities. It is his belief, however, that the approach he is proposing could also be of great value precisely to such authorities. In the first place it would help some authorities develop a constituency to support the granting of needed budgetary resources, frequently wholly inadequate because of the low political priority for the area. The same constituency could help resist the usually counter-productive demand to put more and more people into the human equivalent of dust bins, their custodians being reduced to the status of guardians of human rubbish dumps. It could draw attention to the often parlous conditions of work, residence and sustenance of police and prison personnel, which in turn could contribute to their being trained, paid and valued to act as professionals. Organizations of civil society could also help in the provision of resources, for example, by way of food, goods, medication, legal advice, education and so on. Further, all of this would make false accusations of abuse — always difficult to refute — much harder to sustain. 37. The kinds of access implicit in this conception are not in themselves novel. The Special Rapporteur has encountered different manifestations of it in all parts of the world, but usually on an ad hoc or localized basis in some prisons or police stations. They are generally the exception, not the rule. The Special Rapporteur notes also that architecture will have an important role to play. 38. Accordingly, while urging serious national and international attention to the need to overcome impunity by ensuring individual accountability, the 10 Special Rapporteur also recommends measures of transparency that could go far to preventing torture and ill-treatment in the first place. F. Recommendations 39. In his last report to the Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/2001/66) the Special Rapporteur revised the recommendations that he had compiled in 1994 (E/CN.4/1995/34) into one global recommendation — an end to de facto or de jure impunity. He would like to encourage States to reflect upon them as a useful tool in efforts to combat torture. A further revised version of the recommendations follows: (a) Countries that are not party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights should sign and ratify or accede to these Conventions. Torture should be designated and defined as a specific crime of the utmost gravity in national legislation. In countries where the law does not give the authorities jurisdiction to prosecute and punish torture, wherever the crime has been committed and whatever the nationality of the perpetrator or victim (universal jurisdiction), the enactment of such legislation should be made a priority; (b) Countries should sign and ratify or accede to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court with a view to bringing to justice perpetrators of torture in the context of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and at the same time ensure that their national courts also have jurisdiction over these crimes on the basis of universal jurisdiction; (c) The highest authorities should publicly condemn torture in all its forms whenever it occurs. The highest authorities, in particular those responsible for law enforcement activities, should make public the fact that those in charge of places of detention at the time abuses are perpetrated will be held personally responsible for the abuses. In order to give effect to these recommendations, the authorities should, in particular, make unannounced visits to police stations, pre-trial detention facilities and penitentiaries known for the prevalence of such treatment. Public campaigns aimed at informing the civilian population at large of their rights with respect to arrest and detention, in