CAT/C/ZAF/CO/2 deprivation of liberty, that there have been no examples of complaints leading to prosecutions and that judges are reported to not always take seriously the affirmations of persons deprived of their liberty that their confessions were obtained under torture (arts. 2, 11–13 and 16). 25. The State party should: (a) Speed up the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention and ensure that the future national preventive mechanism is provided with the resources necessary to fully implement its mandate; (b) Enact legislative amendments for bodies that will form part of the national preventive mechanism under the Optional Protocol; (c) Ensure that the currently existing oversight bodies are able to visit all places of deprivation of liberty, including without prior notice, and are able to meet and speak in confidence with persons deprived of their liberty; (d) Ensure regular visits to places of deprivation of liberty other than prisons, in particular to police detention units and psychiatric and social care establishments; (e) Ensure that oversight bodies can deal promptly and effectively with complaints and investigations and hold the relevant authorities accountable; (f) Ensure confidential mechanisms for receiving and processing complaints filed by persons deprived of their liberty; provide adequate safeguards to ensure that complainants will not be subjected to reprisals; and ensure that complaints of torture are investigated in accordance with the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol). South African Human Rights Commission 26. While noting that the South African Human Rights Commission has been given additional powers to give effect to its constitutional mandate, through the South African Human Rights Commission Act of 2013, and has been designated to serve as the national preventive mechanism upon the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention by the State party, the Committee is concerned that the Commission lacks the adequate financial and human resources to carry out all of its mandates (art. 2). 27. The State party should ensure the financial and functional independence of the South African Human Rights Commission by providing it with the resources necessary to enable it to fulfil its mandate effectively, in accordance with the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (the Paris Principles) and the guidelines on national preventive mechanisms issued by the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Cases of torture considered by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission 28. Since the application of the Prevention and Combating of Torture of Persons Act is not retroactive, the Committee is concerned at the absence of prosecution of apartheid-era cases of torture and other gross human rights violations, in particular with regard to persons who were considered ineligible for amnesty by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Committee is also concerned that the State party has not investigated cases of death in detention and other unsolved cases of death relating to gross human rights violations, and at the lack of implementation of the judgment of the North Gauteng High Court concerning the death of Ahmed Essop Timol (arts. 2 and 12–14). 29. The State party should implement the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission relating to the investigation and prosecution of apartheidera cases of torture, ill-treatment, enforced disappearances and other serious human rights violations documented by the Commission. It should prosecute the perpetrators, where possible, and provide adequate redress and appropriate compensation to the 7