example, it was noted that the transfer of power to authorize arrest from the prosecutor’s office to judges in Kazakhstan was given a high priority by the government. Relevant amendments to the Constitution of Kazakhstan and to specific legislation were adopted in 2007 and 2008, respectively. The subsequent impact on torture prevention of these changes, with regard to the handling of allegations of torture and ill-treatment, is an issue for future monitoring by the field operation there. Activities related to preventing torture and ill-treatment by field operations were more developed in some of the Central Asian countries mentioned above than others. These included training on anti-torture issues in relation to implementation of the ICCPR and activities in co-operation with local and international NGOs on such issues as health in prisons, and reform of legislation relating to and public monitoring of detention facilities. In Kazakhstan, a number of meetings were held with the government and civil society organizations in 2007 and 2008 addressing many aspects of criminal justice reform, including the transfer of power of arrest from prosecutors to judges. In addition, anti-torture elements were incorporated in training for trial monitors under an ODIHR Trial Monitoring Project implemented in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Following the ratification of OPCAT by Kazakhstan, debate between the authorities and civil society on a possible National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) model has continued. The OSCE field operation supported a six-month project whereby independent NGO monitors paid 60 unannounced visits to police-station cells and pre-trial detention centres in Almaty. The monitoring project, which was fully supported by the Ministry of the Interior, resulted in disciplinary measures against officials in some instances. The project also incorporated a training component for police officers and monitors. A number of respondents saw the use of the OSCE’s political offices vis-à-vis the government in question as an important part of the Organization’s role in promoting anti-torture measures. This political role has also often been used to support and assist international and national organizations working on the prevention of torture. In some countries, for example, the OSCE has participated in various working groups for reform. Support and the provision of experts for the training of judges, prosecutors, police, prison staff and lawyers was named in several responses as another key area of engagement for the OSCE. Finally, co-ordination with international bodies such as the UN Committee against Torture was reported to be a regular feature of OSCE activity, and included the provision of information on torture and ill-treatment. For some field operations, like that in Tajikistan, the issue of combating torture has provided an opportunity to build a network among government, civil society and international organizations like Freedom House and the Association for the Prevention of Torture. In 2008, field operations co-sponsored a roundtable on implementation of the UNCAT, at which experts underlined the importance of the UN Committee against Torture’s recommendations and the benefits of ratifying OPCAT and concluding an agreement allowing the ICRC unconditional access to places of deprivation of liberty. 16